In context of the supply side argument, James Joyner writes, "With incredibly rare exceptions, presidents are not policy wonks."
This isn't meant to be a partisan post, so I hope it doesn't come out that way. But the exceptions, so far as I can tell, are called Democrats. Clinton was a policy wonk. Carter was a policy wonk. And to keep the pattern going, Al Gore was a policy wonk. Michael Dukakis was a policy wonk. Walter Mondale was a policy wonk. Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk. Wonk wonk wonk. Democrats nominate wonks.
George W. Bush, of course, is not a policy wonk. Bob Dole was, but he didn't win. George Bush senior wasn't a policy wonk*. Reagan wasn't a policy wonk. This isn't a value-laden judgment -- an argument can be made that non-policy wonks are actually more effective presidents, as they're less likely to micromanage the process. But it's nevertheless a significant difference. And it may help explain why some of us liberals are so incredulous that the conservatives accept their president pushing policies that don't make sense based on arguments that don't track. We Democrats don't need our presidents to get things done, but we damn well expect to see some graphs while they fail!
*I think it's fair to say that George H.W Bush was a wonkish -- or at least deeply involved -- on foreign policy. It's also worth saying that he's the least popular of the crew with the right. I, again, don't think it's necessarily a good thing that the Democratic primary is tilted so towards the preferences of educated elites within the party, but it is, and it produces and champions wonky candidates. Just look at the detail being demanded on health care and Iraq on the Democratic side, versus the vaguer statements of principle that seem to suffice among the Republicans.
