In early 2004, the real-estate-fueled economy was chugging along, Iraq had yet to collapse into sectarian war, FEMAs post-Katrina failures were still a glimmer in Michael Browns eye, and most liberals thought the biggest problem with the Bush administration was its politicsnot its ability to get the job done. But veteran Democratic policy adviser Bruce Reed saw the real problem: Bushs inner circle had too many political hacks and not enough policy wonks. Putting on his cultural anthropologist hat, Reed dissected official Washingtons two dominant subcultures and why they scorn, but ultimately need, each other.
After two decades in Washington as a wonk working among hacks, I have come to the conclusion that the gap between Republicans and Democrats is as nothing compared to the one between these two tribes. We wonks think were smarter than hacks. Hacks think that if being smart makes someone a wonk, theyd rather be stupid. Wonks think all hacks are creatures from another planet, like James Carville. Hacks share Paul Begalas view that wonks are all propeller heads, like Elroy on The Jetsons. Wonks think the differences between hacks and wonks are as irreconcilable as those between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Hacks think its just like wonks to bring up the Hutus and the Tutsis.
In every administration, wonks and hacks fight it out. The measure of a great president is his ability to make sense of them both. A president must know the real problems on Americans minds. For that he needs hacks. But ultimately, he needs policies that will actually solve those problems. For that he needs wonks.
President Bush has husbanded some big policy changes through Congressa testament to his considerable political skills. Unfortunately, his policies seem to be better at causing problems than solving them. The economy cant create jobs despite hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus. The reconstruction in Iraq is going over like a remake of Ishtar. The price tag of the new Medicare law is soaring even faster than prescription drug costs. With a record $521 billion deficit, Bush has just presented what might be called the Justin Timberlake budget, ripping off the taxpayers and pretending it wasnt on purpose.
Democrats are understandably eager to blame all these epic failures on ideology. To be sure, Bush is running perhaps the most partisan and ideological White House in the modern era. But the longer I watch this White House, the more convinced I become that ideology is just a convenient rationalization for why the presidents agenda isnt working. The real reason is darker and more disturbing: the Bush White House is so obsessed with the politics of its agenda that it never even asks whether it will work.
Journalist Ron Suskind first sounded this warning in January 2003, in an extraordinary Esquire interview with John DiIulio, the brilliant academic who had resigned from Bushs faith-based initiative the previous year. DiIulio told Suskind, There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What youve got is everythingand I mean everythingbeing run by the political arm. As if to prove the point, the White House got DiIulio to disavow the allegations as soon as they became public.
Suskinds new book about former Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill, The Price of Loyalty, is one long lament on the same theme: the administrations complete disregard for evidence. Every White House worries too much about politics. What DiIulio and ONeill most tellingly reveal is how little this White House worries about anything else.
This site and all contents within are Copyright 1969-2011 Washington Monthly
Editorial offices: 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036