The Georgetown Set

Paperback $17.95

Nov 24, 2015 | 528 Pages

Hardcover $30.00

Oct 28, 2014 | 512 Pages

Ebook $14.99

Oct 28, 2014 | 512 Pages

  • Paperback $17.95

    Nov 24, 2015 | 528 Pages

  • Hardcover $30.00

    Oct 28, 2014 | 512 Pages

  • Ebook $14.99

    Oct 28, 2014 | 512 Pages

Praise

Praise for Gregg Herken’s The Georgetown Set: Friends and Rivals in Cold War Washington
 
“It’s the great gossip text and comedy of manners anatomizing the darkest of Cold War intrigue.  Noel Coward meets John le Carre and Graham Greene, cross-bred with Robert Ludlum.  A triumph!”
–James Ellroy

“Admirable . . . A remarkable book . . . In a bravura feat of research and writing that might have aroused Joe [Alsop]’s envy, Mr. Herken has described a time, a milieu and a life that were, one might say, stranger than journalism.”
Charles McCarry, The Wall Street Journal

“Herken . . . goes into exacting detail in this excellent account, which focuses on the players themselves—their backgrounds, relationships, rivalries, scandals, and opinions on the policies and the events that defined the era . . . Herken covers, among a host of post-WWII milestones, the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the founding of the CIA, McCarthyism, the Korean War, Vietnam, and Watergate. The skill with which he describes the players in Georgetown is not to be missed.”
Publisher’s Weekly (starred)

“Herken takes a rather clever idea promising titillating gossip among neighbors Joseph Alsop, Phil Graham and John F. Kennedy during the 1950s and ’60s and amplifies it into a spiraling delineation of the official American response to the perceived Soviet threat . . .  Herken helps guide readers through the intimate murk of espionage detail, moving from events in North Korea to Berlin to Cuba . . . An intricate study of the personalities that shaped U.S. Cold War policy.”
Kirkus

“Herken reveals how, after World War II, that exclusive Washington enclave was home to a coterie of wealthy, well-educated, and well-connected diplomats, reporters, and spies who ‘inspired, promoted, and—in some cases—personally executed America’s winning Cold War strategy’ . . . The handsome Georgetown mansions still stand today, but the ‘set’—one that could influence presidents and formulate stratagems over martinis and canapés—has long been consigned to history.”
Weekly Standard
 
“Greg Herken has written the hidden history of our foreign policy under Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon, at a time when those who made policy met those who wrote about policy in the living rooms of Georgetown. Herken had the patience to wait until the files were opened. His book is admirably researched and written.”
–Ted Morgan, author of Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America  

“The past really is another country. Gregg Herken’s intriguing volume is a passport that enables us to visit the vanished country of Georgetown during the Cold War. There the braided political and social networks of a small cohort made, and reported, history.”
–George F. Will
 
“Herken . . . draws on recently declassified materials to tell the story of the affluent and influential elites — syndicated columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop; foreign service officers George Kennan and Paul Nitze; Phil and Katharine Graham, the publishers of The Washington Post; and Frank Wisner, the director of covert operations at the CIA – who lived there and influenced American foreign policy from the Cold War to the War in Vietnam . . . Fascinating.”
–Glenn Altschuler, The Oregonian 

“Gregg Herken has diligently brought the old Eastern Establishment back to life in his The Georgetown Set.  A whole host of luminaries – Joseph Alsop, Dean Acheson, Paul Nitze, Phil and Kay Graham among them – make grand appearances in this group biography.  Herken has connected the dots between these so-called ‘Wise Men of the 20th Century’ better than anybody else.  An absolutely wonderful read!”
–Douglas Brinkley, author of Cronkite.
 
“An absolutely fascinating look into a world that has long remained half-hidden but was at the center of America’s post-war global supremacy. This book was waiting to be written, and Gregg Herken delivers with insight and panache.” 
–Evan Thomas, author of The Very Best Men: The Early Years of the CIA and Ike’s Bluff
 
“Highly entertaining and meticulously researched, The Georgetown Set tells the story of the Cold War through the eyes of closely-knit group of friends who formed America’s foreign policy elite.  Gregg Herken provides superb character studies of the brilliant, but occasionally, tortured politicians, journalists, diplomats and spies who populated the salons of Georgetown during the climactic years of the American Century.  He describes their triumphs and disasters, love affairs and petty jealousies, strengths and foibles, with great skill and empathy.  More than just a history book, this is the portrait of a vanished era.”
–Michael Dobbs, author of One Minute to Midnight
 
“There was a time, now passing from memory, when a small group of men and women in a leafy neighborhood of Washington thought they ran the world. They weren’t far wrong. Gregg Herken astutely and entertainingly recreates their circle, with all its idiosyncrasies, ambition and influence. Read it and weep, modern Georgetown!” 
–HW Brands, author of The First American and The Man Who Saved the Union

“Gregg Herken has written a compelling  history of one of the big American stories of the last sixty years – how a WASP band of brothers led the United States to triumph in the Cold War and tragedy in Vietnam. They deserve, and in The Georgetown Set  they get, full credit for both.”
–Thomas Powers, author of The Killing of Crazy Horse

Author Q&A

A conversation with Gregg Herken author of

THE GEORGETOWN SET: Friends and Rivals in Cold War Washington


Q: Your last book, Brotherhood of the Bomb, was about Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller, the scientists most responsible for the advent of weapons of mass destruction. What inspired you to begin writing THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
I’ve long wanted to write a history of the Cold War—a subject I taught for almost 40 years at the college level.  But I didn’t want to write a “policy history.”  Instead, my interest was to focus upon the people who were key to the Cold War story in Washington—in particular, the Alsops, the Wisners, and the Grahams. I had enjoyed writing a group biography of the atomic scientists in Brotherhood of the Bomb, and decided to take the same approach with THE GEORGETOWN SET.


Q: This Georgetown set included Phil and Kay Graham, husband-and-wife publishers of The Washington Post; Joe and Stewart Alsop, odd-couple brothers who were among the country’s premier political pundits; Frank Wisner, a manic-depressive lawyer in charge of CIA covert operations; and a host of diplomats, spies, and scholars. Who intrigues you most and why?

A:
Joe Alsop essentially steals the show in THE GEORGETOWN SET—as he did in real life.  Joe was such a fascinating and influential figure, although he is virtually forgotten today.  Friends described him as an “American aristocrat” and an “emotional hemophiliac.”  As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote, Joe and his brother Stewart were the “generous center of social life” in Cold War Washington.


Q: Tell us about Sunday suppers at Joe Alsop’s home on Dumbarton Avenue.

A:
Most guests found the Sunday night suppers at Joe’s house on Dumbarton Avenue either “exhilarating” or “terrifying”—and sometimes both together. Alcohol—usually gin martinis—were a vital ingredient in what Alsop called the “gen con,” the general conversation. Sitting at the head of the dining table, Joe dominated the discussions, which focused upon the political events of the day.  Controversy was not only tolerated, but encouraged. Joe used to say that it wasn’t considered an argument in the Alsop household until someone had left the table and stormed out of the dining room at least twice.


Q: The Georgetown set was made up of affluent, well-educated, and well-connected journalists, spies, and government officials. How has the dynamic between journalists and government changed over time? Are there any similarities in politics today?

A:
The Washington, D.C. of the Georgetown set has simply ceased to exist. Beyond the poisonous partisanship of the current-day capital, the formerly chummy relationship between journalists and government officials vanished when the two became antagonists and stopped trusting each other.

Investigative reporting, which replaced the so-called elite or “access” journalism of the Alsops, serves the public good when it brings to light political scandals like Watergate. But it has since devolved into a “gotcha” mentality that reflects poorly on both sides. And it seems almost impossible to keep a secret in Washington today.


Q: In 1958, Joe and Stewart Alsop wrote, “Being a newspaper columnist is a little like being a Greek chorus.” What did they mean by this?

A:
The purpose of the chorus in classical Greek drama, as I recall, was to warn the protagonist of approaching danger—and, often, of impending doom.  The Alsop brothers—and Joe especially—saw themselves as doing the same in their newspaper column, which warned incessantly against Soviet expansionism and the danger of nuclear war.  But they probably overdid it, prompting critics to dub them “the Brothers Cassandra” and “Doom and Gloom.”  Interestingly enough, the warnings of the Greek chorus were also typically ignored by the play’s hero—leading to the inevitable tragic ending.


Q: In your research, you drew upon recently declassified CIA and FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and you had exclusive access to previously unavailable private papers. How did you go about your research, and what did you discover that most surprised you? What new information about this period do we learn in THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
Since The Georgetown Set is my fifth book, and my academic specialty is modern American diplomatic history, I’m pretty familiar with doing archival research.  The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the Freedom of Information Act in America have made available to researchers a treasure trove of previously-classified Cold War documents, many of which are now available online at websites like those of the National Security Archive and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Cold War International History Project.  Among the research findings that most surprised me was the extent to which the U.S. government was penetrated by Soviet spies during the Second World War and after.  But equally surprising was the Kennedy administration’s use of the CIA to secretly wiretap American journalists in Project Mockingbird—a top-secret program that plainly violated the agency’s charter, and only recently came to light with the declassification of the CIA’s so-called Family Jewels.  The Alsop papers at the Library of Congress and Joe’s private papers—which the Alsop family generously granted me access to—also made it possible to finally resolve a long-time mystery concerning the KGB’s attempts to blackmail Joe Alsop for a clandestine homosexual affair in Moscow back in 1957.


Q: You write about Kennedy’s election, “the return of a Democrat to the White House marked not only the end of eight long years of political isolation for the likes of Joe Alsop but also a revival of the staid capital city’s social life.” And following his inaugural ball, Kennedy went to a party at Alsop’s home “for more than two hours, not returning to the Executive Mansion until 3:40AM.” What changed for the Georgetown set when Kennedy was elected?

A:
The Alsops present an interesting example of a traditionally Republican family that was also related to—and supportive of—Democratic presidents.  Joe’s influence in the White House peaked during the administration of John Kennedy—whom Alsop called the ‘perfect candidate” for the job.  The reasons for the attraction were obvious:  like Joe, Kennedy was from a prominent East coast family, had gone to Harvard, and took a hard line on defense and the Soviet Union.


Q: How did Watergate and Vietnam bring an end to the Georgetown set’s cozy world?

A:
Joe Alsop was right about McCarthy, wrong about the missile gap, and very wrong about Vietnam.   He was also late to recognize the significance of the Watergate scandal.  Part of the problem is that both Joe and Stewart were “Old School” journalists—they believed that the government had the right to keep at least some secrets.  But even more important was the fact that the brothers depended for news upon the very people they were reporting on—a fundamental flaw of their brand of  “access” journalism.  As New York Times reporter “Scotty” Reston observed, Joe Alsop was “professionally crippled” by his own sources.      


Q: Following Phil Graham’s suicide, Kay Graham became president of the Washington Post Company, and kept up the tradition of the Georgetown salons (at one dinner, she “had to hold her head back to keep the tears from falling”). Was this career move surprising? How did her choice affect gender dynamics among reporters?

A:
I don’t think anyone predicted that Katharine Graham would become the powerful and tough-minded publisher and newspaper owner that she became after Phil’s death. From a shrinking violet perpetually in the shadow of her domineering husband—in those days she was even too shy to fire an incompetent laundress—Kay would succeed brilliantly in what had traditionally been considered a man’s world. Later, she also played an important role in promoting the journalism careers of women at the Washington Post—making her friend and confidante Meg Greenfield editor of the Post’s editorial page, for example.


Q: You describe the Washington Post editorial pages in 1966: “On Mondays, Wednesday, and Fridays, Alsop’s Matter of Fact column declared confidently that the war was being won and ‘standing fast is paying off.’ On Tuesday and Thursdays, Lippmann’s Today and Tomorrow urged the president to halt the bombing and seek a negotiated peace.” Finally, Lippmann denounced “cronyism,” quit the Washington Post, and moved to New York. How did Alsops’ stance quickly result in his being ostracized by reporters, and dropped by his friends?

A:
Joe Alsop seemed to have a particular knack for making enemies—even among those who had once been his friends.  Joe was notoriously unwilling to suffer fools, bores, or critics—and he did not hesitate to insult or attack those who were close to him if he felt they were wrong on an important issue. Things became much worse, of course, because of Vietnam—where, eventually, Joe was virtually alone among his journalist peers in his support for the war. But even then, it was not a personal enmity: although Joe and Walter Lippmann disagreed fundamentally on Vietnam, their letters show a certain mutual respect and even affection. Near the end of his life, Joe also tried to make amends among those he felt he had wronged during his career as a columnist.


Q: What are the most significant ways that the DC you describe in THE GEORGETOWN SET differs from DC today? How are the two similar?

A:
The big difference in Washington between then and now is that, today, the movers and shakers in both political parties rarely talk to one another, except to level accusations and score debating points in the media. What used to be just a partisan divide in the capital has become an ideological chasm—where elected officials are almost afraid to be seen in the same room as their opposite number, lest they be accused of “selling out” or “going soft” by their party’s extremists. The great thing about the Georgetown salons—and, in particular, Joe Alsop’s Sunday night suppers—was that they provided a venue for socializing independent of political affiliation.  That didn’t mean that harmony necessarily prevailed:  it was not unusual for Joe to throw a guest out of his house for some untoward remark.  But, almost invariably, Alsop would send that same guest a letter of abject apology the following day—and it was rare indeed for a feud to result in any lasting personal enmity.  Thus, Joe’s salons forced each side to confront the fact that the other was at least human, and not the embodiment of the Anti-Christ.  Notably, in an interview that Alsop gave to CNN in 1984—just five years before his death, and shortly after the re-election of Ronald Reagan—Joe decried the rise in Washington of those he called the “ideologists”:  “When I was young we didn’t have any ideologists, thank God.  I hate ideologists.  I hate extremists.”  And then he made a prediction that, I think, has relevance for today, with the midterm elections approaching:  “Either great American party that yields to its extreme group is doomed there and then.”  


Q: In THE GEORGETOWN SET, we learn a lot about reporting for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, the New Yorker, and many more publications still in circulation. Can you tell us about a few pivotal articles that ran in these publications?  What do you hope the media will take away from your book?

A:
The publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post was one of the most significant moments in the history of the modern press, along with Watergate, and both are stories told in my book. In 1977, one of the heroes of the Watergate saga—Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein—wrote an article for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” that has never received the attention I think it deserves.  When I interviewed Ben Bradlee at the Post, I told him that I hoped THE GEORGETOWN SET would reveal even more about the secret ties between the intelligence community and the press.  I remember that Ben smiled sardonically and said simply:  “Good luck.” 




FOR BOOKING INFORMATION:
Katie Schoder / kschoder@penguinrandomhouse.com / 212-572-2103

 
 

 

A conversation with Gregg Herken author of

THE GEORGETOWN SET: Friends and Rivals in Cold War Washington


Q: Your last book, Brotherhood of the Bomb, was about Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller, the scientists most responsible for the advent of weapons of mass destruction. What inspired you to begin writing THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
I’ve long wanted to write a history of the Cold War—a subject I taught for almost 40 years at the college level.  But I didn’t want to write a “policy history.”  Instead, my interest was to focus upon the people who were key to the Cold War story in Washington—in particular, the Alsops, the Wisners, and the Grahams. I had enjoyed writing a group biography of the atomic scientists in Brotherhood of the Bomb, and decided to take the same approach with THE GEORGETOWN SET.


Q: This Georgetown set included Phil and Kay Graham, husband-and-wife publishers of The Washington Post; Joe and Stewart Alsop, odd-couple brothers who were among the country’s premier political pundits; Frank Wisner, a manic-depressive lawyer in charge of CIA covert operations; and a host of diplomats, spies, and scholars. Who intrigues you most and why?

A:
Joe Alsop essentially steals the show in THE GEORGETOWN SET—as he did in real life.  Joe was such a fascinating and influential figure, although he is virtually forgotten today.  Friends described him as an “American aristocrat” and an “emotional hemophiliac.”  As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote, Joe and his brother Stewart were the “generous center of social life” in Cold War Washington.


Q: Tell us about Sunday suppers at Joe Alsop’s home on Dumbarton Avenue.

A:
Most guests found the Sunday night suppers at Joe’s house on Dumbarton Avenue either “exhilarating” or “terrifying”—and sometimes both together. Alcohol—usually gin martinis—were a vital ingredient in what Alsop called the “gen con,” the general conversation. Sitting at the head of the dining table, Joe dominated the discussions, which focused upon the political events of the day.  Controversy was not only tolerated, but encouraged. Joe used to say that it wasn’t considered an argument in the Alsop household until someone had left the table and stormed out of the dining room at least twice.


Q: The Georgetown set was made up of affluent, well-educated, and well-connected journalists, spies, and government officials. How has the dynamic between journalists and government changed over time? Are there any similarities in politics today?

A:
The Washington, D.C. of the Georgetown set has simply ceased to exist. Beyond the poisonous partisanship of the current-day capital, the formerly chummy relationship between journalists and government officials vanished when the two became antagonists and stopped trusting each other.

Investigative reporting, which replaced the so-called elite or “access” journalism of the Alsops, serves the public good when it brings to light political scandals like Watergate. But it has since devolved into a “gotcha” mentality that reflects poorly on both sides. And it seems almost impossible to keep a secret in Washington today.


Q: In 1958, Joe and Stewart Alsop wrote, “Being a newspaper columnist is a little like being a Greek chorus.” What did they mean by this?

A:
The purpose of the chorus in classical Greek drama, as I recall, was to warn the protagonist of approaching danger—and, often, of impending doom.  The Alsop brothers—and Joe especially—saw themselves as doing the same in their newspaper column, which warned incessantly against Soviet expansionism and the danger of nuclear war.  But they probably overdid it, prompting critics to dub them “the Brothers Cassandra” and “Doom and Gloom.”  Interestingly enough, the warnings of the Greek chorus were also typically ignored by the play’s hero—leading to the inevitable tragic ending.


Q: In your research, you drew upon recently declassified CIA and FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and you had exclusive access to previously unavailable private papers. How did you go about your research, and what did you discover that most surprised you? What new information about this period do we learn in THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
Since The Georgetown Set is my fifth book, and my academic specialty is modern American diplomatic history, I’m pretty familiar with doing archival research.  The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the Freedom of Information Act in America have made available to researchers a treasure trove of previously-classified Cold War documents, many of which are now available online at websites like those of the National Security Archive and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Cold War International History Project.  Among the research findings that most surprised me was the extent to which the U.S. government was penetrated by Soviet spies during the Second World War and after.  But equally surprising was the Kennedy administration’s use of the CIA to secretly wiretap American journalists in Project Mockingbird—a top-secret program that plainly violated the agency’s charter, and only recently came to light with the declassification of the CIA’s so-called Family Jewels.  The Alsop papers at the Library of Congress and Joe’s private papers—which the Alsop family generously granted me access to—also made it possible to finally resolve a long-time mystery concerning the KGB’s attempts to blackmail Joe Alsop for a clandestine homosexual affair in Moscow back in 1957.


Q: You write about Kennedy’s election, “the return of a Democrat to the White House marked not only the end of eight long years of political isolation for the likes of Joe Alsop but also a revival of the staid capital city’s social life.” And following his inaugural ball, Kennedy went to a party at Alsop’s home “for more than two hours, not returning to the Executive Mansion until 3:40AM.” What changed for the Georgetown set when Kennedy was elected?

A:
The Alsops present an interesting example of a traditionally Republican family that was also related to—and supportive of—Democratic presidents.  Joe’s influence in the White House peaked during the administration of John Kennedy—whom Alsop called the ‘perfect candidate” for the job.  The reasons for the attraction were obvious:  like Joe, Kennedy was from a prominent East coast family, had gone to Harvard, and took a hard line on defense and the Soviet Union.


Q: How did Watergate and Vietnam bring an end to the Georgetown set’s cozy world?

A:
Joe Alsop was right about McCarthy, wrong about the missile gap, and very wrong about Vietnam.   He was also late to recognize the significance of the Watergate scandal.  Part of the problem is that both Joe and Stewart were “Old School” journalists—they believed that the government had the right to keep at least some secrets.  But even more important was the fact that the brothers depended for news upon the very people they were reporting on—a fundamental flaw of their brand of  “access” journalism.  As New York Times reporter “Scotty” Reston observed, Joe Alsop was “professionally crippled” by his own sources.      


Q: Following Phil Graham’s suicide, Kay Graham became president of the Washington Post Company, and kept up the tradition of the Georgetown salons (at one dinner, she “had to hold her head back to keep the tears from falling”). Was this career move surprising? How did her choice affect gender dynamics among reporters?

A:
I don’t think anyone predicted that Katharine Graham would become the powerful and tough-minded publisher and newspaper owner that she became after Phil’s death. From a shrinking violet perpetually in the shadow of her domineering husband—in those days she was even too shy to fire an incompetent laundress—Kay would succeed brilliantly in what had traditionally been considered a man’s world. Later, she also played an important role in promoting the journalism careers of women at the Washington Post—making her friend and confidante Meg Greenfield editor of the Post’s editorial page, for example.


Q: You describe the Washington Post editorial pages in 1966: “On Mondays, Wednesday, and Fridays, Alsop’s Matter of Fact column declared confidently that the war was being won and ‘standing fast is paying off.’ On Tuesday and Thursdays, Lippmann’s Today and Tomorrow urged the president to halt the bombing and seek a negotiated peace.” Finally, Lippmann denounced “cronyism,” quit the Washington Post, and moved to New York. How did Alsops’ stance quickly result in his being ostracized by reporters, and dropped by his friends?

A:
Joe Alsop seemed to have a particular knack for making enemies—even among those who had once been his friends.  Joe was notoriously unwilling to suffer fools, bores, or critics—and he did not hesitate to insult or attack those who were close to him if he felt they were wrong on an important issue. Things became much worse, of course, because of Vietnam—where, eventually, Joe was virtually alone among his journalist peers in his support for the war. But even then, it was not a personal enmity: although Joe and Walter Lippmann disagreed fundamentally on Vietnam, their letters show a certain mutual respect and even affection. Near the end of his life, Joe also tried to make amends among those he felt he had wronged during his career as a columnist.


Q: What are the most significant ways that the DC you describe in THE GEORGETOWN SET differs from DC today? How are the two similar?

A:
The big difference in Washington between then and now is that, today, the movers and shakers in both political parties rarely talk to one another, except to level accusations and score debating points in the media. What used to be just a partisan divide in the capital has become an ideological chasm—where elected officials are almost afraid to be seen in the same room as their opposite number, lest they be accused of “selling out” or “going soft” by their party’s extremists. The great thing about the Georgetown salons—and, in particular, Joe Alsop’s Sunday night suppers—was that they provided a venue for socializing independent of political affiliation.  That didn’t mean that harmony necessarily prevailed:  it was not unusual for Joe to throw a guest out of his house for some untoward remark.  But, almost invariably, Alsop would send that same guest a letter of abject apology the following day—and it was rare indeed for a feud to result in any lasting personal enmity.  Thus, Joe’s salons forced each side to confront the fact that the other was at least human, and not the embodiment of the Anti-Christ.  Notably, in an interview that Alsop gave to CNN in 1984—just five years before his death, and shortly after the re-election of Ronald Reagan—Joe decried the rise in Washington of those he called the “ideologists”:  “When I was young we didn’t have any ideologists, thank God.  I hate ideologists.  I hate extremists.”  And then he made a prediction that, I think, has relevance for today, with the midterm elections approaching:  “Either great American party that yields to its extreme group is doomed there and then.”  


Q: In THE GEORGETOWN SET, we learn a lot about reporting for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, the New Yorker, and many more publications still in circulation. Can you tell us about a few pivotal articles that ran in these publications?  What do you hope the media will take away from your book?

A:
The publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post was one of the most significant moments in the history of the modern press, along with Watergate, and both are stories told in my book. In 1977, one of the heroes of the Watergate saga—Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein—wrote an article for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” that has never received the attention I think it deserves.  When I interviewed Ben Bradlee at the Post, I told him that I hoped THE GEORGETOWN SET would reveal even more about the secret ties between the intelligence community and the press.  I remember that Ben smiled sardonically and said simply:  “Good luck.” 




FOR BOOKING INFORMATION:
Katie Schoder / kschoder@penguinrandomhouse.com / 212-572-2103

 
 

 

A conversation with Gregg Herken author of

THE GEORGETOWN SET: Friends and Rivals in Cold War Washington


Q: Your last book, Brotherhood of the Bomb, was about Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller, the scientists most responsible for the advent of weapons of mass destruction. What inspired you to begin writing THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
I’ve long wanted to write a history of the Cold War—a subject I taught for almost 40 years at the college level.  But I didn’t want to write a “policy history.”  Instead, my interest was to focus upon the people who were key to the Cold War story in Washington—in particular, the Alsops, the Wisners, and the Grahams. I had enjoyed writing a group biography of the atomic scientists in Brotherhood of the Bomb, and decided to take the same approach with THE GEORGETOWN SET.


Q: This Georgetown set included Phil and Kay Graham, husband-and-wife publishers of The Washington Post; Joe and Stewart Alsop, odd-couple brothers who were among the country’s premier political pundits; Frank Wisner, a manic-depressive lawyer in charge of CIA covert operations; and a host of diplomats, spies, and scholars. Who intrigues you most and why?

A:
Joe Alsop essentially steals the show in THE GEORGETOWN SET—as he did in real life.  Joe was such a fascinating and influential figure, although he is virtually forgotten today.  Friends described him as an “American aristocrat” and an “emotional hemophiliac.”  As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote, Joe and his brother Stewart were the “generous center of social life” in Cold War Washington.


Q: Tell us about Sunday suppers at Joe Alsop’s home on Dumbarton Avenue.

A:
Most guests found the Sunday night suppers at Joe’s house on Dumbarton Avenue either “exhilarating” or “terrifying”—and sometimes both together. Alcohol—usually gin martinis—were a vital ingredient in what Alsop called the “gen con,” the general conversation. Sitting at the head of the dining table, Joe dominated the discussions, which focused upon the political events of the day.  Controversy was not only tolerated, but encouraged. Joe used to say that it wasn’t considered an argument in the Alsop household until someone had left the table and stormed out of the dining room at least twice.


Q: The Georgetown set was made up of affluent, well-educated, and well-connected journalists, spies, and government officials. How has the dynamic between journalists and government changed over time? Are there any similarities in politics today?

A:
The Washington, D.C. of the Georgetown set has simply ceased to exist. Beyond the poisonous partisanship of the current-day capital, the formerly chummy relationship between journalists and government officials vanished when the two became antagonists and stopped trusting each other.

Investigative reporting, which replaced the so-called elite or “access” journalism of the Alsops, serves the public good when it brings to light political scandals like Watergate. But it has since devolved into a “gotcha” mentality that reflects poorly on both sides. And it seems almost impossible to keep a secret in Washington today.


Q: In 1958, Joe and Stewart Alsop wrote, “Being a newspaper columnist is a little like being a Greek chorus.” What did they mean by this?

A:
The purpose of the chorus in classical Greek drama, as I recall, was to warn the protagonist of approaching danger—and, often, of impending doom.  The Alsop brothers—and Joe especially—saw themselves as doing the same in their newspaper column, which warned incessantly against Soviet expansionism and the danger of nuclear war.  But they probably overdid it, prompting critics to dub them “the Brothers Cassandra” and “Doom and Gloom.”  Interestingly enough, the warnings of the Greek chorus were also typically ignored by the play’s hero—leading to the inevitable tragic ending.


Q: In your research, you drew upon recently declassified CIA and FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and you had exclusive access to previously unavailable private papers. How did you go about your research, and what did you discover that most surprised you? What new information about this period do we learn in THE GEORGETOWN SET?

A:
Since The Georgetown Set is my fifth book, and my academic specialty is modern American diplomatic history, I’m pretty familiar with doing archival research.  The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the Freedom of Information Act in America have made available to researchers a treasure trove of previously-classified Cold War documents, many of which are now available online at websites like those of the National Security Archive and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Cold War International History Project.  Among the research findings that most surprised me was the extent to which the U.S. government was penetrated by Soviet spies during the Second World War and after.  But equally surprising was the Kennedy administration’s use of the CIA to secretly wiretap American journalists in Project Mockingbird—a top-secret program that plainly violated the agency’s charter, and only recently came to light with the declassification of the CIA’s so-called Family Jewels.  The Alsop papers at the Library of Congress and Joe’s private papers—which the Alsop family generously granted me access to—also made it possible to finally resolve a long-time mystery concerning the KGB’s attempts to blackmail Joe Alsop for a clandestine homosexual affair in Moscow back in 1957.


Q: You write about Kennedy’s election, “the return of a Democrat to the White House marked not only the end of eight long years of political isolation for the likes of Joe Alsop but also a revival of the staid capital city’s social life.” And following his inaugural ball, Kennedy went to a party at Alsop’s home “for more than two hours, not returning to the Executive Mansion until 3:40AM.” What changed for the Georgetown set when Kennedy was elected?

A:
The Alsops present an interesting example of a traditionally Republican family that was also related to—and supportive of—Democratic presidents.  Joe’s influence in the White House peaked during the administration of John Kennedy—whom Alsop called the ‘perfect candidate” for the job.  The reasons for the attraction were obvious:  like Joe, Kennedy was from a prominent East coast family, had gone to Harvard, and took a hard line on defense and the Soviet Union.


Q: How did Watergate and Vietnam bring an end to the Georgetown set’s cozy world?

A:
Joe Alsop was right about McCarthy, wrong about the missile gap, and very wrong about Vietnam.   He was also late to recognize the significance of the Watergate scandal.  Part of the problem is that both Joe and Stewart were “Old School” journalists—they believed that the government had the right to keep at least some secrets.  But even more important was the fact that the brothers depended for news upon the very people they were reporting on—a fundamental flaw of their brand of  “access” journalism.  As New York Times reporter “Scotty” Reston observed, Joe Alsop was “professionally crippled” by his own sources.      


Q: Following Phil Graham’s suicide, Kay Graham became president of the Washington Post Company, and kept up the tradition of the Georgetown salons (at one dinner, she “had to hold her head back to keep the tears from falling”). Was this career move surprising? How did her choice affect gender dynamics among reporters?

A:
I don’t think anyone predicted that Katharine Graham would become the powerful and tough-minded publisher and newspaper owner that she became after Phil’s death. From a shrinking violet perpetually in the shadow of her domineering husband—in those days she was even too shy to fire an incompetent laundress—Kay would succeed brilliantly in what had traditionally been considered a man’s world. Later, she also played an important role in promoting the journalism careers of women at the Washington Post—making her friend and confidante Meg Greenfield editor of the Post’s editorial page, for example.


Q: You describe the Washington Post editorial pages in 1966: “On Mondays, Wednesday, and Fridays, Alsop’s Matter of Fact column declared confidently that the war was being won and ‘standing fast is paying off.’ On Tuesday and Thursdays, Lippmann’s Today and Tomorrow urged the president to halt the bombing and seek a negotiated peace.” Finally, Lippmann denounced “cronyism,” quit the Washington Post, and moved to New York. How did Alsops’ stance quickly result in his being ostracized by reporters, and dropped by his friends?

A:
Joe Alsop seemed to have a particular knack for making enemies—even among those who had once been his friends.  Joe was notoriously unwilling to suffer fools, bores, or critics—and he did not hesitate to insult or attack those who were close to him if he felt they were wrong on an important issue. Things became much worse, of course, because of Vietnam—where, eventually, Joe was virtually alone among his journalist peers in his support for the war. But even then, it was not a personal enmity: although Joe and Walter Lippmann disagreed fundamentally on Vietnam, their letters show a certain mutual respect and even affection. Near the end of his life, Joe also tried to make amends among those he felt he had wronged during his career as a columnist.


Q: What are the most significant ways that the DC you describe in THE GEORGETOWN SET differs from DC today? How are the two similar?

A:
The big difference in Washington between then and now is that, today, the movers and shakers in both political parties rarely talk to one another, except to level accusations and score debating points in the media. What used to be just a partisan divide in the capital has become an ideological chasm—where elected officials are almost afraid to be seen in the same room as their opposite number, lest they be accused of “selling out” or “going soft” by their party’s extremists. The great thing about the Georgetown salons—and, in particular, Joe Alsop’s Sunday night suppers—was that they provided a venue for socializing independent of political affiliation.  That didn’t mean that harmony necessarily prevailed:  it was not unusual for Joe to throw a guest out of his house for some untoward remark.  But, almost invariably, Alsop would send that same guest a letter of abject apology the following day—and it was rare indeed for a feud to result in any lasting personal enmity.  Thus, Joe’s salons forced each side to confront the fact that the other was at least human, and not the embodiment of the Anti-Christ.  Notably, in an interview that Alsop gave to CNN in 1984—just five years before his death, and shortly after the re-election of Ronald Reagan—Joe decried the rise in Washington of those he called the “ideologists”:  “When I was young we didn’t have any ideologists, thank God.  I hate ideologists.  I hate extremists.”  And then he made a prediction that, I think, has relevance for today, with the midterm elections approaching:  “Either great American party that yields to its extreme group is doomed there and then.”  


Q: In THE GEORGETOWN SET, we learn a lot about reporting for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, the New Yorker, and many more publications still in circulation. Can you tell us about a few pivotal articles that ran in these publications?  What do you hope the media will take away from your book?

A:
The publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post was one of the most significant moments in the history of the modern press, along with Watergate, and both are stories told in my book. In 1977, one of the heroes of the Watergate saga—Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein—wrote an article for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” that has never received the attention I think it deserves.  When I interviewed Ben Bradlee at the Post, I told him that I hoped THE GEORGETOWN SET would reveal even more about the secret ties between the intelligence community and the press.  I remember that Ben smiled sardonically and said simply:  “Good luck.” 




FOR BOOKING INFORMATION:
Katie Schoder / kschoder@penguinrandomhouse.com / 212-572-2103

 
 

Product Details

Also by Gregg Herken

Biographile.com
Back to Top