In recent weeks, I’ve heard the word “policy wonk” used to describe people, but with little context for the adjective. From what little I’ve been able to gather, it seems like a policy wonk is another term for a federal politics geek … someone who
Watches lots of C-SPAN and Sunday morning panel shows.
Reads magazines like “The Nation” and “National Review”
Reads the New York Times and the Washington Post
Would rather attend a Mark Russel performance than a Beatles reunion concert
Knows the secretaries of every federal department and commission.
A policy wonk might do any or all of those things, but the list is missing the key characteristic – a policy wonk is interested in government policy. So he or she studies policy, has opinions about policy, reads about policy – what policies are good, what are bad.
A “policy wonk” is distinguishable from a “politico,” someone who is only interested in winners and losers from a political point of view. A policy wonk is really interested in how government works and how to make it work better (which might mean, from some wonks’ points of view, doing less), regardless of who won the election.
Well, you’re mostly correct there. One thing I might add is that “policy wonk” can sometimes be applied to people that enjoy discussing the finer points and ins and outs of goverment policy so much that they actually don’t really do anything.
I heard several people - not just rapid Republicans - say after 9/11 that Gore wouldn’t have gone after Bin Laden because he’s a policy wonk - this is to say, by the time Al consulted everyone in the Pentagon, gotten an enviornmental impact statement from the EPA about the bombing in Afganistan, consulted the EEOC about Bin Laden’s hiring practices, had the Federal Reserve discuss the impact on interest rates, asked for a cost-benefit analysis from the Department of Education about striking the name “Bin Laden” from any school textbooks in print, and asked all of the above about their “inner feelings” and “core beliefs” about it all, Bin Laden would have died from old age.
I would define a wonk as someone with a keen academic interest in some subject matter. The Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution are kind of like policy wonk petting zoos.
If you want to see what a policy wonk looks like on the SDMB, go to Great Debates and start a discussion on Global Warming, or the basis for International Law. That’ll draw them out like flies to honey.
I omitted that it was just the definition of “wonk”, thinking it clear from the cites. Yes, a policy wonk would be a wonk with respect to government policy.
I think it’s really become one of a special class of insults: those oriented to achievement. We’ve got computer geeks, math nerds (/me bows), and policy wonks.
I think it’s worth noting that “policy wonk” is not always necessarily an insult. As acsenray notes above, it can be useful in distinguishing the people who delve into how policy works from those who are purely into the politics. When used to make this distinction, it is only in the vaguest sense an insult. I’d say even less of an insult than “geek,” which serves the same distinction between the management and the people who really know how computers work, and as such has been co-opted by some as a badge of honor.
To use recent politicians of note as examples, you might say Gore was so wonkish that it was detrimental - he was all policy mind and no political skill. But I have also heard wonk used complimentarily in comparing Clinton to Bush. Bush doesn’t give a damn about policy. He’s purely a politician. He’s the guy who says what he thinks and maybe gives direction to his staff, and then has them figure it all out. Clinton on the other hand, loved ideas almost as much as he loved interns, and really got into discussing whether single-payer health care or welfare reform could work, and if so, how. Some crazy people might see that level of wonkdom as admirable in an elected politician.