RALEIGH – I’ve worked in and written for think tanks for more than 15 years. Most would characterize the organizations involved as conservative or libertarian. I know dozens of think tank executives on the Right, and possibly even hundreds of scholars, analysts, and writers affiliated with them.
So the more I read about the “intensive research” conducted into these think tanks by Rob Stein, founder of a Leftist argument called Democracy Alliance, the more I doubt either his veracity or his perspicacity.
Democracy Alliance has reportedly lined up $80 million towards a goal of $200 million to be spread among existing and new left-wing think tanks across the United States. Stein, a former investment banker and Clinton administration aide, reportedly reacted to Republican gains in the 2002 congressional elections by “burn[ing] the midnight oil” to research the role of think tanks in the GOP’s political gains. Concluding that liberals and Democrats were far outmanned and outgunned in the intellectual department – his Democracy Alliance colleague Simon Rosenberg calls conservative think tanks “an Information-Age Tammany Hall – Stein come up with the strategy of convincing liberal zillionaires to put money into think tanks rather than just Democratic political machines.
I’ve already written quite a bit about the skewed take on the constellation of intellectual forces that Stein and Rosenberg tout, or perhaps even believe. While conservative and libertarian groups labeled as “think tanks” might well outnumber and outraise their counterparts in the liberal or progressive Left, that’s like rating the relative strengths of basketball teams by looking only at the respective point guards.
Conservatives created think tanks, the first wave right after World War II and the second during the 1970s, because they saw American academia, media, publishing, and government to be an overwhelming left-wing establishment. Viewing this establishment as close-minded, intolerant, and unfriendly to principles such as individual liberty and traditional values – debate these propositions if you like, but they were certainly widely shared by conservatives at the time – they sought to create cultural and intellectual organizations that would produce free-market, conservative ideas, programs, journals, and books.
Academia, media, and publishing are still overwhelming left-liberal in their predominant ideology, though the latter two have changed in important ways that have offered more opportunities for conservatives, libertarians, and just plain non-liberals. Government, on the other hand, has clearly changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s. Many more politicians and staff members professing their conservatism are in office and formulating policy, in Washington and in state capitals, though one can certainly question whether their professed views comport with what they actually do.
Stein and Rosenberg apparently believe that this was a consequence of conservative investment in think tanks, which is no doubt partly true, and also that this was a conscious, concerted effort by Republican activists, which is not. There is some overlap between GOP contributors and conservative –movement donors. And some Republican politicians have become think-tankers over the years, and vice versa. But in general, people who form, fund, and staff conservative think tanks aren’t motivated by a partisan agenda. They care passionately about ideas (enough to forsake more lucrative careers, in most cases).
If liberals such as Stein and Rosenberg approach their new project as a means of advancing the Democratic Party, they will fail spectacularly.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.