Brad DeLong points us to an article that talks about thenumber of experts that are volunteering time or working with the Kerry campaign. It’s an impressive list. The article also goes on to point out that the gridlock that can get created with so many advisors. It seems that so many people want to volunteer their time because of frustration with the current administration (shocker, that one). I think it also highlights another important difference between the major candidates. Some telling quotes:

“We have a high-class problem on this campaign,” Bianchi said. “People want a change — a lot. There is an unprecedented amount of energy. That leads to a lot of people wanting to do everything they can.”

It has also opened the campaign to Republican ridicule. Stanzel said the campaign’s policy apparatus “demonstrates John Kerry’s indecisiveness.”

“Why is it that after 20 years in United States Senate, John Kerry needs that many people to tell him what he thinks?” Stanzel said.

Uh, yeah… cause Bush is an expert on all things with his 6 years as Gov and 3+ years as president..

Brian Burke, who oversees the policy councils, said he has formulated an orderly process to get input, but he said Kerry does not want to stifle any voices in the party.

“That’s how Democrats do it, generally,” he said. “You don’t want to think you know everything. You want to hear from a lot of people. [President Bush's operatives] have almost nobody looking at policy, yet they think they have all the answers.”

OK, so by saying “Democrats,” he’s overstating it quite a bit. I don’t think this sort of policy formulation is either a Democratic or Republican trait. What it is, however, is an important indicator of the difference between these two campaigns. It also underscores why it’s important to have a President you can trust to understand and boil down lots of input. I have faith that Kerry can do this. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has demonstrated little, if any, effective grasp of policy tradeoffs.

I had a econ professor in college whose name escapes me right now who was an economic advisor to both Bush senior and Clinton. He said something stuck with me and changed my opinion about Clinton to a pretty significant extent. He talked about how he was concerned about a governor from Arkansas dealing with macro policy issues on a national level. Whatever else people thought of his politics or person, this professor said that Clinton got everything he was briefing the President on. Clinton would ask insightful questions and left him comfortable that regardless of the final decision, Clinton got his perspective and understood his opinion. He respected the elder Bush but didn’t quite feel as comfortable with him all the time.

I want that kind of President in the White House. I also want a President in the White House who will explain why he’s doing things to the press… one tough thing about being concerned about doing the right thing is that occasionally you have to admit you’re wrong. The opposition then plays it as flip-flopping.

It’s important to analyze policy decisions as they come and make the distinction between principled and politically motivated decisions (and this applies to both candidates). Too bad our media doesn’t really help us with that.