In most cases the links I put up here are optional reading, but this one is mandatory. I insist.
Every president has on top of the bureacratic agencies an enormous staff whose job it is to set policy goals and draft legislation for submission to Congress. The staffers can be grouped into two categories: the political "hacks", who look at polling data and focus groups to shape policy suitable for talking points and other reelection purposes (which often include pandering to small but influential consituencies), and the policy "wonks", the pointy-headed bureaucrats who try to write up the best possible legislation based on economic forecasting, cost-benefit analysis, and other (hopefully) apolitical considerations.
A lot has been said recently about the Bush administration's reliance on the "hacks" and distrust of the "wonks". This
article in The New Republic puts it all together very nicely with a long list of examples. It's a must-read. Despite a few cheap shots, the liberal author (Franklin Foer) includes a long and fairly sympathetic explanation for conservative's suspicions about social science as a government tool. But in the end he comes down very harshly on the administration. If anything, the article needs to be longer. Some of the examples are given only a sentence and, if expanded, would show just how shocking Bush's disdain for expert opinion really is. Also, I learned from this article the Lynne Cheney is a very, very smart second lady.
