How Chicago is superior to D.C.

How Chicago is superior to D.C.

I recently returned from a three-day visit to Washington, D.C., where I attended the progressive CPAC event and had some meetings.

I'm so glad to be home in Chicago.

It's not that my trip was bad. I saw a lot of friends and colleagues, met some new people, and my meetings went well. I enjoyed walking around Georgetown, and I even got a behind-the-scenes tour of the U.S. Capitol by a friend who works there.

It's that, as a city, Washington is a place removed from reality. It's a dream world, where the main economy really is zero-sum, and where people who work for or on government are required to avoid practicing politeness.

Let me explain what I mean by contrasting our town with Washington through three dimensions: geography, economy, and society.

Chicago exists where it does because it is accessible by water routes. The Chicago River, Lake Michigan, and others made it easier for people and goods to locate to this spot many decades ago. Washington, although it too is located on a river, was chosen as a spot for a city because of a political compromise between the north and the south. It sits between Virginia and Maryland so that no one geographic faction could commandeer too easily the levers of the federal government. Washington was not located where it is because that place was the best place to build a city where people wanted to live or where they could make things. Its birth came of contentious wrangling over political issues such as slavery. Ask yourself whether so many people would live in the D.C. area were it not for all the power we've given to the federal government. It probably would not. Chicago, on the other hand, exists because its location offered unique advantages to people engaged in serving their fellow man. Washington is sited through human design; Chicago through human action.

Next come the cities' economic differences. Chicago's economy was based originally on commodities such as fur and meat. It moved to manufacturing, printing, and trading to become the center of finance, banking, and education it is today. Each of these industries emerged locally because people specializing in them here made their services valuable to others. Our city's economy changed because people stopped needing fur so much, meat became cheaper to produce elsewhere, and Chicago was no longer the best place for manufacturing. Chicago's economy changed according to the demands of others, while Washington's has not. Washington's economy has remained static, unchanging, and uncreative. That's not to say its economy hasn't grown–per capita income in the D.C. area is now highest among the 50 states by far. This is because the federal government has amassed more and more power, money, and human capital as the years have passed. I hadn't been to Washington for a few years before my recent trip, so I was shocked at how many ads I saw that aim to persuade people in power to use your money and mine to fund private energy and agricultural companies. Unlike Chicago, Washington's economy is not based on creating true value for others. Rather, it is based on redistributing the wealth of the country and skimming some from the top. That skimming represents billions of dollars of wasted resources that might have been used to grow the economic pie had it remained available to those who earned it rather than fueling the ambitions of lobbyists, politicians, and government staffers.

Economy brings me to the most important contrast between Washington and a genuine American city: society. Although five of Chicago's top six employers are government entities, most people here don't make their livings by skimming from a constant stream of tax revenues. That means business dealings are done much more on the basis of voluntary decisions. People expect to receive something valuable when they decide freely whether to exchange their money for something else. Likewise, the seller accepts the buyer's money because it is worth more to him than what he is peddling. If either condition isn't met, these people won't meet again. But when they are met–which is every time you buy a coffee from Starbucks–you have the opportunity to practice politeness with someone with whom you may have never interacted otherwise. Voluntary exchange gives us the chance to act decently with people of different backgrounds and opinions. Of course, there is some voluntary exchange in D.C., and there are many opportunities for people to behave civilly outside of their work: concerts, museums, theatre, sports. But given that Washington's primary industry is government, these opportunities occur with less frequency there. For example, if I am a staffer who works for Senator Red and you are one who works for Senator Blue, it's likely we'll regard the other with suspicion or contempt if we ever meet. Because government can only redistribute wealth created elsewhere, the government-centric economy really is zero-sum: If you win, I lose. Although some of this exists everywhere government takes from some to give to others, it is most acute in Washington.

I admire the ornate buildings and monuments in Washington as much as anyone else. They're impressive feats of artistic and architectural expression. They remind us of our history. In those ways, they are valuable. But I am saddened when I think about how they inspire reverence toward government as the entity that can address nearly any problem.

Washington, D.C. is an artificial city. Chicago is real, which is why I love living here and why it is superior.


Leave a comment
  • It is indeed fascinating and disgusting to go to DC and see all the Ads plastered in the Metro and elsewhere begging for more government money. It wasn't as bad a few years ago, but they seem to be at least half the ads I see on the Metro now. I guess they just know their market.

    Another problem with DC is the false animosity. You said that Red and Blue staffers may distrust each other. However, another phenomenon are those people who you'd *think* would be at each others' throats, but who are in fact good friends. This actually includes some Team Red and Team Blue folks (shows you how fundamentally "different" they really are I guess) but also includes lobbyists and lawmakers and lawyers and regulators. Politics and government put on a show for the rest of the country, but when it comes down to it most people on Washington are really on the same team.

  • You're actually 180 degrees off in your claim that "Washington was not located where it is because that place was the best place to build a city where people wanted to live or where they could make things." It exists where it does because George Washington wanted it to include both the cities of Georgetown and Alexandria. Now before you go thinking that's just politics as usual, it's important to remember that those port cities were built where they were because they are just below the fall line and are as far inland as sea-going vessels could carry freight. In other words, Washington, DC is where it is because, 1) a federal district had to be created, and 2) it was situated where two vital and nascent port cities were located.

    Now don't get me wrong, it makes a nice libertarian anecdote. But like most nice libertarian anecdotes, it's a little thin on fact.

  • In reply to almondwine:

    Thank you for your comment, almondwine. All the history I've read indicates the siting of D.C. was a political decision. How could it not be? It was founded as the federal city.

    You're correct there had been settlements in the area previously, but the area would likely be nothing like it is today–with its power, prowess, and substantial population–were it not a creature of the federal government.

Leave a comment