What Role Do Think Tanks Play in Formulating American Policy?

 

August 13, 2024

If Americans pay attention to current events, and politics, or even read online publications, at some point they will hear or read about "Think Tanks," which sounds like a prestigious term. Think tanks began as organizations that perform research and are advocates on various subject matters, including social policy, political movements, economics, and military strategy. Most think tanks are non-governmental organizations, but a few are tied to government agencies, some created by defense contractors, multi-billion-dollar corporations, and military entities such as the military-industrial complex companies (Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, etc.) and the Department of Defense. What role do these think tanks play in American domestic and foreign policy, and is it good for the country in terms of how we formulate policies that are best for the country's direction?

_________________________________

Think tanks have been around for decades, with experts in various fields, either in a residency program or working full-time, until "friends" in a new presidential administration recruit them to serve in senior positions. These organizations focus on research regardless of whether the government requires it, or a university initiates the request to use resources from fundraising donations. Additionally, they may not be at the mercy of political winds unless their donors have specific ideological perspectives.  Their empirical data collection and findings are used by legislators and government administrators as the basis for laws and public policies. Some good things come out of the think tank world, but other factors contribute to more federal policies that are enacted.  

Think tanks became more partisan, due in part to an ever-divisive political discourse; as such there are both influential liberal ones (Roosevelt Institute, Center for American Progress) and others, as well as conservative think tanks. Certain specific organizations cater to the worldviews of their wealthy donors (such as the CATO Institute, with libertarian Charles Koch as a co-founder, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, funded in part by Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban) and ideological (such as John Birch Society, Federalist Society), and those that skew center-right (Hoover Institute).

Over the last 30 years or so, think tanks have been used more often to help determine legislative initiatives (both domestic and foreign policies) and they have become invaluable for both major parties for administration staffing, and policy ideas.  Additionally, they have been used for Supreme Court recommendations, judges on the federal bench including appellate openings, by different administrations, executive staffing within federal agencies, and suggested policy directives.

There are think tanks that have considerable endowments, along with individuals with expertise that have seen their influence increase and sway members of Congress in both parties.  However, this blog will focus on organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the John Birch Society, and the Federalist Society.

Heritage Foundation (HF)

This conservative think tank was created in 1973, which included some seed money from wealthy beer magnate Joseph Coors, and was also led by co-founders Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner.  It is one of the most well-known think tanks, whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C, and its influence is considerable. I believe many planks within the Republican party platform have been incubated in the halls of this think tank, and their fingerprints are on many legislative bills passed by Republicans in Congress.  The organization created a subsidiary to influence conservative members of Congress called "Heritage Action," which focuses on opposition to ideas such as climate change and Critical Race Theory (CRT), to name a few.

The foundation gained influence beginning in 1981, during the transition by the newly elected Ronald Reagan, which published a set of books called "Mandate for Leadership," which was a directive for dismantling the overbearing administrative state.  The proponents who initiated it were given prominent positions by the Reagan Administration to ensure the implementation of many of the books' proposals.

During the 8 years of Reagan's presidency, many of the ideas that became synonymous with his time in the nation's capital were fermented at the foundation, which includes the "Reagan Doctrine," where the United States provided economic, military, and other forms of support for governments around the world fighting communist movements (Angola, Nicaragua and Afghanistan) and the use of an integrated satellite network to combat a Soviet ballistic missile threat, known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as "Star Wars."

A new proposal that has gathered consciousness around the country (but most certainly with the media) is called "Project 2025" and includes initiatives to give the President expanded and specifically, central control over the expansive government.  The goal is to give the chief executive more encompassing powers, such as treating all federal employees as political appointees, who can be easily fired at will. It is part of the conservatives' desire to make the chief executive fall under the "unitary executive theory," where the President of the United States has immense influence and power to reshape the government (both policy-wise and personnel-wise) under their own image. Some of these ideas include partisan control of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to name a few. In addition, reductions in environmental and climate regulations are in favor of fossil fuel production and refinement.  Former President Trump has read it but has stated publicly (while campaigning anyway) that he does not plan to enact the publication's agenda as his own. It remains to be seen if he is being honest.

John Birch Society (JBS)

This is another well-known conservative think tank headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, and founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr.  While this organization is familiar to those who follow American politics, it lacks the clout and influence of the other think tanks.  It is viewed by liberals as an ultra-conservative, even fundamentalist society that promotes extreme conservative orthodoxy.  A prominent conservative, the late William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, sought to push this fervent group of conservatives away toward the fringe of national Republican discourse and relevance while he was active in party politics. Their membership includes some of the business class, the suburban middle class, and wealthy Americans.  

The organization's primary goal was to combat communist ideals at home through politics, but lately, it has morphed into a reactionary, conspiratorial political organization. The JBS was fearful of "one world government" organizations and agreements, such as the United Nations (UN), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Their reasoning was that the U.S. Constitution was devalued and superseded by their agendas. The organization was not in favor of the Federal Reserve System and want it to be audited regularly and eventually dismantled. 

Even though it is not primarily a religious organization, the JBS played a role in the elevation and support of the Moral Majority (Rev. Jerry Falwell) and conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly. Some within GOP circles felt that although their influence was thought to have peaked in the late '60s and early '70s, their ideals and beliefs have morphed into the current strain within populist members of the Republican party's base of voters.  However, since the views of JBS are too extreme for even the moderate wing of the GOP and the business community as a whole, they are not as influential as in years past.

Federalist Society (FS)

Outside of the Heritage Foundation, I believe this think tank has the most influence on Republican politics and has seen its efforts rewarded on a national scale. It was founded as a legal organization that promotes conservative and libertarian principles behind legal scholarship.  Chapters were created at law schools around the country to counter perceived liberal bias at those institutions, and to promote ideas that are more aligned with the Constitution. An additional motivation for the founders was to work to promote judicial restraint, rather than the activist advocacy that many conservatives felt jurisprudential law was moving towards. The logo is of James Madison, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and author of The Federalist Papers, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Major donors in its infancy include the conservative power brokers at the Scaife Foundation and Koch family foundations.

Ambitious, right-leaning lawyers, wanting federal judgeships, and senior positions within Republican administrations, seek out and are vetted through the Federalist Society. To some, it acts as a sort of "de facto gatekeeper," according to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, legal scholar and constitutional law expert, and Chair of the politics department at Pomona College. 

It is the power broker for law school graduates who seek to bolster and strengthen their ambition within a conservative legal community. Former senior executive Leonard Leo felt that the Society was primarily created to build a community that would protect its core beliefs and be self-sustaining and self-driving. A fact worth mentioning is that it is one of the greatest success stories in terms of a student group that matriculated to a powerful institution in Washington, D.C.'s political scene. Their power and reach are exhibited within the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), where five of the nine justices are open about their membership, beginning with law school and with the Society. 

Its members and alumni have played significant roles in important cases of legal precedent, contributing a part to rulings (as supporting players, lawyers before the bench, etc.), including before the SCOTUS that conservatives favored.  One, District of Columbia v Heller, SCOTUS ruled that each specific individual, and not the collective right, could keep and bear arms. It supported the Federalist Society's primary goal for fewer regulations, across the board, both for individuals who want to purchase and bear guns on their property, or with proper licensing, on their person in the District of Columbia. The Federalist Society was instrumental in shifting public and court opinion, over many years, to a position that was favored by the organization.

In Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court weakened regulations for campaign finance, where the majority opinion favored incorporating the free speech clause of the First Amendment into contributing to political campaigns. Those Justices felt that it was an overreach by the government to restrict or prohibit independent expenditures for communications (or financial contributions) by nonprofit corporations, for-profit entities, labor unions, and other types of associations such as the conservative non-profit called Citizens United. The organization was also very active for years on this subject, focusing on lobbying efforts for members of Congress, working to move the public's perception of this issue, and was ultimately successful in its efforts. Critics felt it tilted the scale for influence to corporations and labor unions, to an even greater level, and removed individuals, unless wealthy, to the fringes of political relevance.

The Way Forward

These three examples provide a glimpse into why think tanks have proliferated over time, and why they no longer just partake in scholarly research, gathering data, and presenting findings but rather have a strong influence on those in Republican leadership.  Many governments around the world along with corporate and military interests have realized how useful it can be to create think tanks, advocacy organizations, and research institutes that provide the impetus for policy.  The benefit that these organizations do in terms of research is that their work continues as long as the term for the funds is pre-established.  With government research, information can be canceled or thrown out depending on when a new party controls Congress or the White House. To avoid this, many of the backers of think tanks and advocacy organizations (one would assume) may feel it is better to contribute to those types of entities, rather than lobby their members of Congress to provide taxpayer funds for special projects or advocacy.

Take for instance think tanks that are associated with or tied to military defense contractors.  What is their primary motive? To provide case studies or data that support an increase or justification for military spending.  Some of the profits from these large, affiliated corporations use some of their profits to invest in their think tanks for research that will support an increase in weapons projects, design, and purchase.  If they get their way, and if they are publicly traded corporations, this will see their stock price go up, leading to more profits.  It is a pretty smart method in my opinion.  Experts who are quoted or given platforms on traditional media arguing for a legislative bill related to defense spending don't necessarily disclose the source of funding for their research. When presented to unsophisticated citizens, it comes across as an independently researched basis for a particular funding initiative.

Due to this successful method, think tanks have proliferated across many industries in numerous countries propositioning for fewer regulations related to banking, finance, or government programs. American think tanks have shown the best way to influence media and legislative bodies to support their positions. These organizations have mastered the art of advocacy and in the future, funding, de-regulation, and policy positions will most likely come from think tanks, and it is the best way to convince the general public, or whatever audience is needed to sway opinion to get their desired outcome.  The American think tank advocacy model is what corporations, media platforms, and politicians will use to win arguments, and most importantly, direct the money flow to the right people and companies.