Strategies and Stories
Consulting Services of David Brodwin & Associates

Main Navigation

The Real Purpose of Think Tanks

What is the Real Purpose of a Think Tank?
(hint: it’s not just to think.)

by David Brodwin
“We man the ivory towers as well as the trenches in the war of ideas.  We define the objectives, devise the strategies, and manufacture the ammunition.  The war of ideas is a war of words—a war of intellect.  It is a war of great importance… Lenin put it this way:  ‘Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.’”

“Ideas like Supply Side economics, privatization, enterprise zones, and the flat tax are produced by individuals first—the academic scribblers, as Keynes would call them.  But it takes an institution to help popularize and propagandize an idea—to market an idea.” 

Selling ideas takes time.  Proctor and Gamble does not sell Crest toothpaste by placing one newspaper ad or running one television commercial.  They sell it and resell it every day by keeping the product fresh in the consumer’s mind.   Organizations like Heritage Foundation sell ideas in much the same manner.”

-    Ed Feulner, Jr., President, The Heritage Foundation


A War of Words and Ideas

Are you surprised that the leader of America’s best known conservative think tank quotes Lenin approvingly?  Though Edwin Feulner no doubt despises Lenin’s views on economics, he acknowledges Lenin’s mastery of the power of ideas and ideology.

Political movements of the left and right have long relied on think tanks to produce ideas that lead policy forward.  Think tanks provide essential analysis and argumentation on which many other participants in movements rely.  Major examples include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and Manhattan representing variants of conservatism; Brookings and New America Foundation representing views near the middle, and Center for American Progress representing a center-left or progressive perspective.

The total spending by foundations to support think tanks and related activities exceeds several hundred million dollars per year, and think tanks (especially on the right) enjoy substantial private philanthropy as well.   The largest individual think tanks on both sides are quite well funded.  For example, the conservative Heritage Foundation weighed in at $63M revenue in 2008, and on the left, Center for American Progress weighed in at $29M for 2007.

Although think tanks are important to both sides of the political spectrum, there are many important differences—both strategic and tactical—between those on the left and those on the right.  Some of these differences have been well described elsewhere, notably by Andrew Rich in his article “The War of Ideas” and book, Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise.    Nonetheless, certain critical differences are not yet widely understood, and the misperceptions that remain undermine the effectiveness of progressive movements for change.  This is a particularly urgent issue today; economic distress and the current political alignment in Washington create the best opportunity in years for real transformation.  We must take full advantage of the opportunity that fate has provided; this will require strengthening the think tank infrastructure and better integrating it into the rest of the movement.

Crucial Differences between Think Tanks of Left and Right

Three aspects of the way conservative think tanks are organized add greatly to their effectiveness, and call for a response from progressive groups. 
  • They see their mission as promoting the conservative world view as much or more as discovering new truths through research.
  • They invest heavily in promoting their ideas, not just formulating them. They leverage economies of scale, and they understand the importance of media relations and of repeated exposure in the marketing of ideas
  • They coordinate tactically with other parts of the conservative movement to maximize their impact and their usefulness to the movement as a whole.
Not all think tanks on the left and right fit these generalizations. For example, the Center for American Progress was founded in part with the goal of building a muscular capability for marketing and promotion, and it operates in this mode.  The Institute for Policy Studies embraces the mission of “ideas into action.”  Not all conservative think tanks promote ideas as aggressively and effectively as does Heritage. 

This article will explore the difference in mission.  A sequel will explore the differences that involve investment in promotion vs. investment in production, and how conservative think tanks coordinate their tactics with other organizations in the conservative movement.

What's the Mission?   Truth vs. Marketing

It may be said, with some exaggeration, that think tanks of the left and right have viewed their missions in fundamentally different terms:
  • Many think tanks of the left see their mission as a search for truth.  The paradigm is university research.
  • Many think tanks of the right see their mission as crafting arguments to advance specific policy goals and conservative ideology in general.  The paradigm is public relations.

Example: Heritage Foundation

The conservative Heritage Foundation provides an excellent case example.   The Foundation’s mission statement is:
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
The most striking aspect of this mission statement is that everything starts with principles and values, not with analysis and data.  A similar statement of mission guides American Enterprise Institute, another leading conservative think tank: “AEI is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of a free society--limited government, competitive private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and vigilant defense--through rigorous inquiry, debate, and writing”

In light of Heritage’s mission, it is hardly surprising that the policy papers published by Heritage show very little actual research, if research means collecting and analyzing data to test a hypothesis.   Instead, most of their publications more closely resemble op-eds; the five principles articulated in their mission statement are expanded upon and rephrased creatively to formulate arguments for the policies they support.  Often, the report titles convey policy recommendations directly, and make no mention of data: For example, recent titles include:  “The Economic Role of Government: Focus on Stability, Not Spending” and “The Max Tax: Baucus Health Bill Is More of the Same”  

The way Heritage defines its mission, and the way its reports are structured and delivered tends to amplify its effectiveness in two ways.  First, much of what Heritage writes serves a dual purpose: in the short term, their writings advance the specific policy positions they favor, and over the long term, the writings reinforce and build support for the conservative world view in general terms as a political philosophy.   Second, the output of Heritage is designed and structured so that other participants in the conservative movement (legislators, media commentators, leaders of advocacy groups, etc.,) can easily absorb the product and repurpose it for tomorrow’s news cycle or this week’s skirmish on the Hill.  It should not surprise us if the immediate practical utility of the conservative think tanks’ product helps attract more money for their operations.

Example: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Contrast Heritage with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a major center-left or progressive think tank with a $16M budget.  The Center is widely respected and does outstanding work on a broad range of issues.  Its mission is described as follows:
The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates.  We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.
Two key differences between this mission and that of Heritage stand out: the absence of a broad statement of liberal or progressive political principles (though the focus on inequality addresses part of this), and the emphasis on research and analysis rather than principles as the starting point.  Accordingly, most of the reports featured on their home page strike a tone of factual reporting rather than argumentation to support specific policy goals.  For example, current headlines include: “Poverty Rose, Median Income Fell, & Job-Based Health Insurance Weakened in 2008” and “Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion”  It is up to the reader to interpret what conclusions to draw from this information, and what policies to support.  It is up to other entities in the progressive movement to translate this material into words that can penetrate the news cycle or change the debate on the Hill.

Controlling How Major News Events are Framed

The differences in mission are even more stark when it comes to contesting the frame for major news events as they arise.  The framing of major news is a critical part of promoting and defending a political world view.   For example, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, with hundreds dead and tens of thousands homeless, there was a brief moment of uncertainty before a narrative took hold to instruct the general public as to the meaning of the event.   Would the public see the disaster through a progressive lens as a tragic failure of government to take care of its people?  Or would the public see the disaster through a conservative lens as yet more “proof” that those who are properly self-reliant and resourceful take care of themselves, and those who wait for others to solve their problems deserve their fate?  In situations like these, conservative think tanks are prepared to spring into to action to control the meaning of the event and frame it according to the conservative world view, whereas progressive or liberal think tanks are inclined to hold off until data can be collected to permit a more dispassionate and thorough analysis of the event and its implications.

Communicate As If It Matters

Whether think tanks on the left should become more like those on the right is a complex and open question: certainly our situation on the left is very different, and our solutions could well be different.  For example, the conservative movement is more concentrated in its organizational structure than the progressive movement, and more amenable to top-down command-and-control approaches for message coordination and delivery.  

The challenge at this point is not to copy slavishly, but to understand what works for the right, and why.   Then, we must develop solutions that can work as well or better for our own think tanks, while remaining grounded in our core beliefs and values.  It may be that progressive or left-of-center think tanks should shift in some respects; or it may be that we need a new and different type of institution to absorb the intellectual output of the think tanks and perform the roles that are not fully developed in the think tanks themselves.

Think tanks of a progressive or liberal bent have begun to clarify and assert more strongly the core ideas from which their reports flow, for example: the role of government to stimulate the economy, the role of government to regulate the market to prevent abuses and instability, and the role of government to encourage the kinds of economic activity (e.g. small, local business, clean energy) that lead to a better future.  These efforts are steps in the right direction. They should be continued until we have forged a clear statement of our principles, regardless of whether we label the principles as progressive, liberal, centrist, or simply pragmatic.   Our statement needs to have the same tautness, comprehensiveness, surface plausibility, and deep connection with American values and traditions that we find in the Heritage Foundation’s statement of conservative principles.

The conservative movement has won stunning ideological and material victories in the past 30 years.  Indeed it seems that only when material economic conditions run strongly against the conservative ideology has it been possible to make real progress with fresh ideas and policies.  This is not good enough.  We need to be able to win the race even without the wind at our backs.  We need our think tanks and other institutions to help advance a new narrative about the economy, a narrative based on fundamental principles, articulated consistently, and marketed unrelentingly.  Otherwise the core conservative narrative of market fundamentalism will reassert itself triumphantly as the economy recovers.



Creative Commons License (CC-BY-NC)