When politicians are not good enough

The development of think tanks in the US coincides with a state apparatus that has grown in size and taken on ever more complex tasks. Foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment contributed with research and reports to meet the social and economic challenges of industrialism. During the Second World War, organisations such as the Rand Corporation came along to analyse defence and security policy.

Everything was objective, dispassionate and based on research. The think tanks worked close to federal power and its institutions. Almost without exception, political solutions were proposed for social problems. But during the social eruptions of the late 1960s, this approach was called into question. The liberal, progressive era was succeeded by a conservative era. A new type of think tank developed: ideological and often conservative or neoliberal. The emphasis was less on research and more on ideas, principles and values. The basic assumption was that the size of the state and the increasing influence of politics were the great social problem.

The archetype of the ideological conservative think tank is the Heritage Foundation, formed in 1973 to provide conservatism with a more aggressive direction independent of party politics. The intention was to make legislation more ideological. The power of ideas, rather than pragmatism and consensus, would underpin decisions. The basic attitude was and is: politicians are not good enough.

The timing could not have been better. Receptiveness to market solutions and criticism of the welfare state grew in pace with social antagonisms and an economic downturn. The Chicago School contributed the theory and Ronald Reagan the politics. The 1980s were a triumph for the Heritage Foundation, which has subsequently been regarded as the United States’ most influential think tank.

The Heritage Foundation was also a trailblazer in its methods. The boundary between policy and politics dissolved. They became directly involved in Congressional decision-making, placing staff members on Capitol Hill. Their reports were brief and concise, excellent for journalists and politicians short of time. Their communication and marketing departments worked intensively on contacts. Newsletters and mass mailings created a committed network of donors and members.

I make my way to this much envied, mythical and feared think tank, in the direction of Congress. One idea comes to mind, which soon becomes a question: the US has had a conservative president for seven years. Is this an ideological harvest time like the 1980s for the Heritage Foundation?

”There have been times of prosperity and times of adversity”, replies Robert Bluey, who leads Heritage’s Center for Media and Public Policy. On the one hand, tax reductions, on the other, greater public expenditure; on the one hand, a halt to more liberal immigration legislation, on the other, the failure to introduce market solutions into the pension system. For him, increased military rearmament and two conservative judges on the Supreme Court are good things.

But everything takes time, adds his colleague Bridgett Wagner, who is responsible for national and international contacts with conservative groups and networks. She gives the examples of Ronald Reagan’s tax reductions and Bill Clinton’s welfare reforms. ”You have to put forward an argument, debate, put forward proposals, build coalitions and seek support from the general public.”

Bluey’s and Wagner’s attitude to Congress is downright contemptuous. Members of Congress waste time on inessentials, manipulate the voters and each other, and do not understand the decisions that they themselves are taking. Bluey provides the example of a bill proposed in December in which a number of budget resolutions still up for consideration were bundled in order to be quickly addressed. The aim was obvious: to get it through as quickly and painlessly as possible. No one had the time or energy to get to grips with the content. As a result, the politicians could avoid protests and debate.

”We found out about this on a Friday afternoon. The first thing we did was to make the bill searchable on-line. Then we started a blog so that people could see the pork barrel politics, the earmarks and all the gimmicks. The bill passed, but there was no news story which didn’t mention how bad it was. Then we stirred up the debate to such an extent that President Bush announced that he was considering cancelling the projects financed by the bill. (After this interview took place, Bush promised in his State of the Union Address at the end of January to limit earmarks.)

A similar course of action was used last year to mobilise opposition to new immigration legislation. The Heritage Foundation’s analysts drew completely different conclusions from the statistics and got members of Congress on their side. The organisation’s staff held briefings and seminars. They were just as much a conservative movement as a think tank, using methods used in part by lobbyists.

”We’re not lobbyists,” says Wagner quickly. ”We don’t tell politicians how they should vote.” But that is a formality to prevent them from losing their status as an organisation to which people can make tax-deductible donations. Wagner does not protest when I note that information from the Heritage Foundation makes it fairly clear to politicians how they should vote.

Could that not potentially be a problem of democracy, that they and not the politicians set the agenda and take the initiative? Bluey and Wagner chuckle at the question. ”I get so many calls from Congressional staff where they say that my Senator or Congressman has asked me to call, asking about whether you’re familiar with this bill. Do you know what’s happening? Can you help with an analysis? The politicians don’t have the knowledge or the time to study and understand what they’re deciding on. They’re part of a system they don’t master and which is counter-productive. The Heritage Foundation’s task is to discover and lay bare the ideas and principles contained in or missing from the flow of reports and bills. Politicians aren’t good enough.”

Wagner sums up. ”We’d like them to reduce their workload. Politicians concentrate on spending money. They don’t exercise their overarching duty to review measures and policies and determine whether they work. And they often implement a new policy without reviewing or doing away with the old one.”

What the Urban Institute wants is for politicians to take decisions based on solid factual grounds. At 2100 M Street lies nerd heaven. Forget about ideology and values and let research results decide when taxes, healthcare, education and welfare programmes are being shaped. But, of course, this perfect world exists neither in Washington nor in any other capital. Political decisions are inevitably subjective, short-term, not founded on principle and often counterproductive. But if accurate information is placed at the disposal of Congress and the White House, then they at least have been given an opportunity to do what is right for the country.

This is how the Urban Institute sees things. Two thirds of their revenues of 67 million dollars comes from the federal government to evaluate these different operations, 25% from major foundations and the rest from individuals. (The Heritage Foundation does not receive a penny from the federal government. Roughly half of its budget of 40 million dollars comes from private individuals, one third from foundations and the rest from companies.) Here, they strictly maintain the distinction between politics and policy. There is no question of putting pressure on Capitol Hill, says Kathleen Courrier, Vice President of Communications at the Urban Institute.

”We’re very restrained in our contacts and getting close to politicians, but we’re often invited to attend Congressional hearings. For us, that’s more important than being quoted in the media. We absolutely do not want to be associated with lobbying. And we very rarely accept money for commissioned research.”

I mention the fact that the Urban Institute is regarded as a Left wing organisation. ”That’s because of our agenda. It’s not politically but rather socially motivated, and liberals (the Left in the US) are generally more interested in social questions than conservatives are.”

It could also be said that the Urban Institute is one of the traditional think tanks that do not challenge the political system, but rather accept its task. Their analysis of programmes and operations does not question the systems as such. The important thing is to study whether they work as they should. The Heritage Foundation’s research, on the other hand, makes no secret of the fact that it is guided by conservative principles and values. Or as Courrier describes this point of view: ”It’s not what you should think but rather how you should think.”

Like many other think tanks, they see it as an advantage that researchers have some experience in politics. Someone who has served for a few years in a governmental department understands the real world and has built up a valuable contact network. One such person is tax expert Leonard Burman, who has migrated over the years between the Treasury Department, the Congressional Budget Office and the Urban Institute. He is now leading the research group the Tax Policy Center, TPC. Burman gives several examples of how their research influences decision-makers. It is a more indirect influence. Research colleagues and specialist journalists who regularly keep an eye on TPC pass messages on to Congressional experts, who in their turn brief the politicians who, finally, decide to act.

”Many think tanks measure their influence in the number of their quotations in the press. But we also look at hearings, invitations to seminars and downloads of our literature. I myself contact certain journalists and politicians. At the same time, we have to be careful not to appear to be lobbyists. I can say: This is good, or this is bad. But never: Vote this way!”

In the media storm that is constantly blowing around American politics, it is not only the fight over the agenda that is crucial; just as important is the privilege of formulating the problems. In brief: getting one’s message accepted.

”It’s a major problem for us and other serious players. We’re continually being challenged by the Internet and chat programmes on radio and TV, where people can say anything at all and be believed, whereas it takes us a much longer time to break through with the general public.”

Facts kick, as Gunnar Myrdal said. But the question, of course, is how hard and how long. A week or so after our conversation, The New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Leonard Burman about US economic problems. A triumph – what is more desirable than being able to put forward one’s views in the world’s most influential daily newspaper? For the elite, the answer is clear. But this very fact confirms the Urban Institute’s and Leonard Burman’s concerns. The message gets out, but the audience is limited and the influence uncertain.

Translated by Phil Holmes