![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
choco_froshWhile at the VA Hospital for one last round of alcohol study, I was reading a month-old copy of Time, and I came to a realization:
I am a political wonk. (1)
Or, perhaps more accurately, I want wonks as political leaders.
I came to this insight by a curious route: a comment that John Edwards,(2) while he seemed to have a plan, was avoiding seeming like a wonk. He has big goals; he hasn’t made a big deal about how he plans to achieve them. (3) My mind immediately went to Bill Richardson, who, whenever asked to state his views in print, gives you a précis not only of what he wants to do but how he plans to accomplish it. This, I realized, was what people call wonkitude.
But why should this be a bad thing? When we hire a contractor, it is generally considered to be a good idea if they have not only a vision for the project, but also a realistic estimate of how much it will cost (in time, money, and inconvenience), and thus of the weight-bearing capacity of materials, how much work carpenters can be expected to do in a day, how much the electrician is going to charge, and so on. Likewise, I at least would want him to outline this information for me before I hired him. He wouldn’t have to tell me of course: that’s what color-coded binders are for. You don’t necessarily read all the information in the project binder; but it’s nice to know it’s there, and it’s available if you’re interested in the details of what he’s planning to do to your house, or if you want to his math. So why should a potential president, who has the whole country to put new insulation and wallboard on, be treated differently?
Yes, yes, yes: I know the answer. The public, in essence, a president who seems impressive, yet one of them: their ideal contractor is a handsome, burly guy in a baseball cap who talks about the Yankees nonstop. (Whether or not he has a brain, or is using it to swindle them on the deal, is apparently irrelevant). But, God damn them, what about me? Do I, geeky intellectual that I may be, not have a right to a candidate who impresses me, who can connect to my people? Especially if, if anyone thought about it for five minutes, it would be obvious that a woman or man with a plan is what we need a time of national uncertainty and crisis?
I want a president (and mayor, governor, and state and national representatives, for that matter) who is a wonk. Someone who’s thought about how to accomplish his vision of America, and isn’t afraid to admit it. She/he does not need to be like some of my friends, who you can’t shut up once they get launched onto their topic of choice; he or she does need to be like my friends in their ability and willingness to explain their topics, in a reasonable combination of depth and comprehensibility, to anyone who’s interested. It goes without saying, of course, that their plans have to be such as I want to have carried out. Giuliani or Romney may well have detailed, well-thought-out plans for their presidential policies: I haven’t checked, I’m sorry to say. I haven’t dared. I’d take Obama over them any day. But given the choice, I’d prefer a left-wing wonk. I’d prefer Richardson.
No, he’s not going to win. (Short of a miracle). He’s a heavy-jowled, greasy-haired, short guy who looks like Gordon Brown, without any of the stage presence. But every time I hear about Hillary Clinton slagging off Barack Obama for his lack of political experience, I feel like grinding my teeth. If we want political experience, why should we vote for the ex-First Lady? How about the Energy Secretary, who might have a clue about how we formulate a more responsible energy policy? How about the six-term Congressman, who knows—from the Reagan years—how to get a bill though in the face of opposition? How about the Governor, who actually has some executive experience? How about a man who has been active, in every stage of his career, in foreign policy?
And every time I hear about Obama’s minority status, or Edwards’s roots among the common folk, or Dodd pleading against voting against the candidate with good hair, I think about Richardson.
(1) Wonk: indicates someone who’s too expert in something. Like a boffin, but (usually) for something at least theoretically useful. People who take part in political-union-style debating parties and debate all the minutiae of national politics are wonks; people who take part in Doctor Who conventions and debate all the minutiae of Dalek vs. Cyberman politics are boffins.
(2) John Edwards might, in some respects, be my favorite among the “major” candidates were it not that (a) he belongs to two groups (Southerners and lawyers) whom I tend to distrust illogically, and (b) the same article in Time informed us all that he is betting his political campaign on gaining the support of Iowa, whereas my political position can be summed up as “Let’s screw Iowa!” But that’s a post for another time…
(3) QV The Onion: “Edwards vows to end all bad things by 2011.”
I am a political wonk. (1)
Or, perhaps more accurately, I want wonks as political leaders.
I came to this insight by a curious route: a comment that John Edwards,(2) while he seemed to have a plan, was avoiding seeming like a wonk. He has big goals; he hasn’t made a big deal about how he plans to achieve them. (3) My mind immediately went to Bill Richardson, who, whenever asked to state his views in print, gives you a précis not only of what he wants to do but how he plans to accomplish it. This, I realized, was what people call wonkitude.
But why should this be a bad thing? When we hire a contractor, it is generally considered to be a good idea if they have not only a vision for the project, but also a realistic estimate of how much it will cost (in time, money, and inconvenience), and thus of the weight-bearing capacity of materials, how much work carpenters can be expected to do in a day, how much the electrician is going to charge, and so on. Likewise, I at least would want him to outline this information for me before I hired him. He wouldn’t have to tell me of course: that’s what color-coded binders are for. You don’t necessarily read all the information in the project binder; but it’s nice to know it’s there, and it’s available if you’re interested in the details of what he’s planning to do to your house, or if you want to his math. So why should a potential president, who has the whole country to put new insulation and wallboard on, be treated differently?
Yes, yes, yes: I know the answer. The public, in essence, a president who seems impressive, yet one of them: their ideal contractor is a handsome, burly guy in a baseball cap who talks about the Yankees nonstop. (Whether or not he has a brain, or is using it to swindle them on the deal, is apparently irrelevant). But, God damn them, what about me? Do I, geeky intellectual that I may be, not have a right to a candidate who impresses me, who can connect to my people? Especially if, if anyone thought about it for five minutes, it would be obvious that a woman or man with a plan is what we need a time of national uncertainty and crisis?
I want a president (and mayor, governor, and state and national representatives, for that matter) who is a wonk. Someone who’s thought about how to accomplish his vision of America, and isn’t afraid to admit it. She/he does not need to be like some of my friends, who you can’t shut up once they get launched onto their topic of choice; he or she does need to be like my friends in their ability and willingness to explain their topics, in a reasonable combination of depth and comprehensibility, to anyone who’s interested. It goes without saying, of course, that their plans have to be such as I want to have carried out. Giuliani or Romney may well have detailed, well-thought-out plans for their presidential policies: I haven’t checked, I’m sorry to say. I haven’t dared. I’d take Obama over them any day. But given the choice, I’d prefer a left-wing wonk. I’d prefer Richardson.
No, he’s not going to win. (Short of a miracle). He’s a heavy-jowled, greasy-haired, short guy who looks like Gordon Brown, without any of the stage presence. But every time I hear about Hillary Clinton slagging off Barack Obama for his lack of political experience, I feel like grinding my teeth. If we want political experience, why should we vote for the ex-First Lady? How about the Energy Secretary, who might have a clue about how we formulate a more responsible energy policy? How about the six-term Congressman, who knows—from the Reagan years—how to get a bill though in the face of opposition? How about the Governor, who actually has some executive experience? How about a man who has been active, in every stage of his career, in foreign policy?
And every time I hear about Obama’s minority status, or Edwards’s roots among the common folk, or Dodd pleading against voting against the candidate with good hair, I think about Richardson.
(1) Wonk: indicates someone who’s too expert in something. Like a boffin, but (usually) for something at least theoretically useful. People who take part in political-union-style debating parties and debate all the minutiae of national politics are wonks; people who take part in Doctor Who conventions and debate all the minutiae of Dalek vs. Cyberman politics are boffins.
(2) John Edwards might, in some respects, be my favorite among the “major” candidates were it not that (a) he belongs to two groups (Southerners and lawyers) whom I tend to distrust illogically, and (b) the same article in Time informed us all that he is betting his political campaign on gaining the support of Iowa, whereas my political position can be summed up as “Let’s screw Iowa!” But that’s a post for another time…
(3) QV The Onion: “Edwards vows to end all bad things by 2011.”
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 12:01 am (UTC)I have never heard either of these terms, although I'm familiar with the species they describe. Which is fascinating. Are they regional?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 12:42 am (UTC)According to the OED, "wonk" in the above-used sense is American in origin:
"wonkish adj. orig. U.S. Polit. excessively concerned with minute points of (governmental) policy (cf. policy wonk n. at POLICY n.1 Compounds 2); (also more generally) bookish, intellectual; extremely detailed or specialized."
I had only seen the adjectival form—"wonky"—which has no such implication of obsessive competence. Which is neat. I love language.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:12 pm (UTC)And WORD. I want a president who is SMARTER THAN ME. Which, with all due respect, means s/he has to be PRETTY DAMN SMART.
-g
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:50 pm (UTC)Granted, part of it may relate to being in a democratic system, and wanting to feel that the debates that determine your future (and your vote) are not beyond your comprehension, but given the lack of interest a lot of people have in political debate, I think they're already giving over the debate to the "experts" - provided those "experts" are people they feel they can personally trust and relate to.