Tell me about Washington think-tanks

Great Debates
1

This thread might belong in GQ because I’m asking for factual information – but the topic is of such a political nature that it would probably get moved to GD before too long.

I just read an article by Robert Dreyfuss in the March 1, 2004 issue of The Nation, about a new Washington think-tank founded by John Podesta and called the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=8473). This institution is supposed to be a “center-left” idea factory for the Democrats – i.e., left of the Democratic Leadership Council’s “third way” Progressive Policy Institute (http://www.ppionline.org/), but right of the Campaign for America’s Future (http://www.ourfuture.org/), which was founded in the 1990s to counteract the former’s influence and pull the Dems back towards its base in organized labor, minorities and the working class.

Leaving aside the value of these various positions, this article reminded me of an important fact: There are a lot of think-tanks, or policy-analysis institutes, in Washington, D.C., and they have a lot of power – they don’t exactly lobby Congress but they provide lobbyists, and congressmembers, with a lot of their conceptual tools and arguments. Together with academia and the media, think-tanks form one of the three main nodes of political-intellectual activity in America. (See Michael Lind’s article, “The Three Countries of the American Mind,” TheHudson Review, May 1, 1999 (http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=562)). Think-tanks are important.

But most people don’t know anything about them – not even the most important things, like how many of them there are and what political values they represent. The think-tanks’ names rarely tell us much: Who, on first hearing of the Institute for Policy Studies (http://www.ips-dc.org/), would assume it is a left-progressive organization? And my local library does not seem to carry any book that can serve as a comprehensive guide to the think-tanks.

Does anybody know if there is a good source out there? How many think-tanks are there in D.C.? Who funds them, and why? How much power do they really have over policymaking? How can the various think-tanks be arranged on the political spectrum, or map? Are there any significant gaps – political viewpoints represented among large segments of the people, or by organized third parties or interest groups, but not represented by any think-tank? Who works for these think-tanks? Who researches and writes their policy reports? Ph.D.s in polysci, or in economics, or MBAs, or what?

And . . . when and how did all this get started? I’m sure there were no think-tanks in D.C. during Lincoln’s administration, nor Teddy Roosevelt’s . . . but they were definitely in place by Kennedy’s time.

2

I can’t think of any good, widely distributed books on thinktanks… but I have skimmed this book and found it to be very interesting as a comparative approach – ie, how the US Congress has many sources of expert opinion to fuel policy debates, but Japan has only one: the bureaucracy. As a result, there are a greater number of informed positions on policy issues in the US than in Japan, because Congress can go to various thinktanks, for example, that allow minority parties to develop their views.

I think it’s important to distinguish between the various flavors of “thinktanks.” There are serious thinktanks, with endowments, research contracts, PhDs, and so on, that tackle issues tha appeal mostly toward the technocrats in government. I’d put RAND, Brookings, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in this general category.

Then there are those that masquerade as thinktanks, that produce analysis that has more or less the primary intention of fueling a particular point of view. These tend to feed politicians more than technocrats. Some of these shops start to meld into lobbying organizations, because the analysts lean more toward the “we’ve got a bone to pick” rather than the “ivory tower” mindset. I’d place the Center for American Progress and the Hertitage Foundation in more of this category than the first.

As far as funding, the more “serious” ones tend to have endowments or government contracts. The more “political” ones tend to get more donations.

Thinktanks can be influential, but like someone choosing what magazines they read, policymakers tend to only seek advice from thinktanks that agree with their own, preconceived notions – if you like the Wall Street Journal, you’ll probably listen to the Heritage Foundation, for example.

They are important to policy debates, of course, but I really think the front page of the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal have more influence on what’s going on in Washington.

3

Here is a listing of the top 25 think-tanks cited in major media, along with their orientation, as compiled by FAIR which is a liberal media watchdog group. So, it gives you a rundown, along with a study of how many media cites the different orientations got.

One might quibble with the exact labeling of orientation that FAIR gives them in a few of the middle-of-the-road cases. (E.g., is the Progressive Policy Institute “centrist” or “center left”? I think this is the one that is essentially an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council so FAIR calls it “centrist” but I imagine some of our right-of-center posters might feel otherwise.) But, the basic idea is there.

I think these think-tanks can be quite influential. And, that is a mixed bag. On the one hand, they sometimes do some interesting and good work. On the other, you have to remember that their work is not often subject to the same standards of peer-review that would apply to research published in reputable journals so you have to be pretty cautious with it. Of course, it is best when the think-tanks give you links to less-partisan sources. For example, while CBPP (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) is definitely left-wing, they do generally give you good cites…So, if they are talking about their conclusions from the CBO study of who pays what federal taxes, they’ll give you the link right back to the study so you can look at it yourself. I personally feel that the standards seem to be lower for such right-wing (libertarian-leaning) think tanks as Cato, National Center for Policy Analysis, and Heritage Foundation, which often give you stuff that is not as well-documented (and in fact highly misleading or inaccurate) although maybe one of our right-of-center posters will rise to their defense.

4

I can add a bit of an insider’s perspective to this, as I used to work for a Senator.

Think tanks in DC do a few things for the legislative branch. First off, they provide free lunches. Since most staff aren’t paid all that well, a free lunch is always a good thing. Of course, with that free lunch comes a presentation from that think tank on, usually, a recently released study or book by someone associated with them. These forums provide the think tank with an opportunity to influence the thinking of those who help make legislation happen. Keep in mind that the way most think tanks are incorporated, they can’t lobby in favor or against particular bills, so these forums are usually broad-based. I think their goal is more to influence the long-term thinking of staffers on a general issue area than affect legislation immediately. For example, the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) has many Capitol Hill forums that present a libertarian view of government on a wide range of issues. These forums aren’t so much designed to affect a bill moving through Congress at that time, but instead are designed to present a libertarian viewpoint on certain issues so that staff will (possibly) start thinking of that issue within the libertarian context.

Also, an important part of what think tanks do is educate staff. I have found that some staff (especially younger Hill staff – of whom there are many) don’t have a solid grasp on many issues. Experts from think tanks do, and these forums are their way of educating staff about their particular issues. Many of these experts have advanced degrees and are quite knowldegeable. Speaking from a staffer’s perspective, it was very helpful to hear what they had to say on certain issues. Even if I didn’t agree with the ideological spin from the think tank staff, their general explanation of the issue was usually very good.

This also makes a connection between staff and the experts. The experts make themselves available to give advice for staff. I know when I was working on a certain bill, I wouldn’t hesitate to call up experts from a friendly think tank (whom I had met at a Hill forum) and ask them for advice on how to shape the bill and for facts that my boss could use when discussing the bill. I think this is the most important function these experts serve. They were experts on the issue on which I was crafting a bill, and they helped me understand what I was doing. Now, of course they had a certain ideological perspective on it and thus were quite biased, but my boss shared their bias so it’s not like I was being steered astray in my ignorance. Furthermore, they could provide many facts to back up what my boss wanted to do, and they thus strengthened his efforts. What it came down to was that these experts allowed me to do my job easier and more efficiently. In return, they were able to help write legislation and influence the Congressional debate in their policy area.

The think tanks serve an important function of providing intellectual support for your efforts. When staff need facts to back up their positions, they turn to think tanks. If you are a conservative Congressman or his/her staff, you can turn to the Heritage Foundation to get advice and facts for your efforts. If you are a liberal, you can turn to Brookings. Libertarians can go to Cato. Of course, helping staff is not their only function, but it is an important part of their mission.