In Ohio, you often hear the media quote the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Research.  But the following article is well worth reading about who these self-described "think tanks" are and who guides the discussion of important issues in the public forum.

 

 

The Alarming Corruption of the Think Tanks

By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times

December 14, 2012

 

Item: U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) resigns from Congress to become president of the Heritage Foundation

 

Item: Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey resigns as chairman of FreedomWorks over $12 million in secret cash payments to the organization, leaves with $8 million payout.

 

These two items illustrate an important phenomenon now taking place in Washington: the end of the think tank as we know it. Rather than being institutions for scholarship and research, often employing people with advanced degrees in specialized fields, think tanks are becoming more like lobbying and public relations companies. Increasingly, their output involves advertising and grassroots political operations rather than books and studies. They are also becoming more closely allied with political parties and members of Congress, to whom they have become virtual adjuncts.

 

Historically, think tanks like the Brookings Institution were universities without teaching. Indeed, Brookings was originally established as a university and it still has a dot-edu web address. Its goal was to bridge the gap between academia and the policymaking establishment.

 

In the 1970s, this model began to change with the founding of the Heritage Foundation. Unlike Brookings, Heritage was not especially interested in research; its goal was to directly influence policy, especially on Capitol Hill.

 

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/14/The-Alarming-Corruption-of-the-Think-Tanks.aspx#dUy7qd5cC3jcsP2a.99

Somebody post the Seinfeld bit about think tanks.  I'm at work and can't look it up. 

Think Tanks: Are They Really What They Say They Are?

No.

That was easy.

I picture think tanks as places where they brainstorm ideas on how to manipulate the populace into taking on certain political ideals.

They're just another way for special interests to influence policy.

They are what they were all along, the brains behind what is typically called lobbying. 

 

Brookings and others of its ilk were able to present a different image in the era of limited (and liberal dominated) media. Heritage and Cato were formed to be its counterparts.

They are what they were all along, the brains behind what is typically called lobbying. 

 

Brookings and others of its ilk were able to present a different image in the era of limited (and liberal dominated) media. Heritage and Cato were formed to be its counterparts.

 

If you say so...

 

 

Brookings and others of its ilk were able to present a different image in the era of limited (and liberal dominated) media. [/color]

 

Such as when the Fairness Doctrine was still enforced and at least two sides of an issue had to receive equal time?

Although I have to think that talk radio is losing some influence because of satellite.  To some extent people were listening to Rush Limbaugh, etc., in the 90's because there wasn't much else to listen to. 

Although I have to think that talk radio is losing some influence because of satellite.  To some extent people were listening to Rush Limbaugh, etc., in the 90's because there wasn't much else to listen to. 

 

It's losing more influence to the internet.  Rush was the main source of anti-Clinton info that had credibility on the right.

 

First it was news pages (Drudge broke the Lewinsky case), then fora (Free Republic broke Memogate), and now it's everyone's Facebook pages.  The movement's actually refragmenting in this way.

 

The "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't even be discussed if left-leaning talk radio wasn't so boring due to too damned many sacred cows.

Historically, think tanks like the Brookings Institution were universities without teaching. Indeed, Brookings was originally established as a university and it still has a dot-edu web address

 

The famous RAND Corporation actually did set up an education function, a graduate school in policy analyses (PhD).

Pardee Rand Graduate School  (I guess Pardee was some Rand bigwig from days gone by).

 

RAND got its start as a joint venture between the USAF and one of the defense contractors (McDonell Douglas?) for some out-of-the-box thinking on aerospace stuff.  Believe it or not, back in the 1960s and 1970s they branched out into urban policy, but then abanonded that for stuff like education and health care, and, of course, they still do "Defesne Policy" stuff.  The ulimate policy wonk place, but more for quants vs 'sociology' type anayses.  They seem to be fairy objective, but distrust these places as there is always some 'agenda'.  At least with Heritage and AEI its up-front.  Hoover a bit less so.  And those various "geographical name" places (Rocky Mountain Institute, Buckeye Institute, etc) are usually right-wing. 

 

I think the orginal one of those was the Hudson Institute, founded (or dominated) by a former Rand guy Herman Kahn (who was actually a pretty interesting character)

 

 

The "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't even be discussed if left-leaning talk radio wasn't so boring due to too damned many sacred cows.

 

Interesting theory. Makes me wonder why you think right-wing comedians don't take off in popularity. And why don't these sacred cows hinder the likes of Stewart and Colbert?

The "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't even be discussed if left-leaning talk radio wasn't so boring due to too damned many sacred cows.

 

Interesting theory. Makes me wonder why you think right-wing comedians don't take off in popularity. And why don't these sacred cows hinder the likes of Stewart and Colbert?

 

Those guys make plenty of money and aren't on air three hours a day.  As for comedians, most of the best hit both sides, politically.

 

Rush succeeded in a moribund medium by embracing an idea that most of his right counterparts and virtually all of his left counterparts either forget or reject:  the format is more important than the message.  Too many talk show hosts suffer from an overabundance of self-righteousness or earnestness.  Consider this as well:  it's way more socially acceptable to tell a political joke than make an unsolicited political statement in conversation.

 

The only host I've ever heard that's better at this is Jim Rome.  This is because callers are the most boring and inane part of any well run show, and while Rush is open about screening them, he still takes too many.  Rome openly asserts:  the fewer callers, the better.

Rush doesn't suffer from an overabundance of self-righteousness? Are we talking about the same guy?

>It's losing more influence to the internet.

 

People listen to the radio in the car.  They don't get on the internet in the car, or at least shouldn't.  But now people are listening to all kinds of random stuff on satellite and on podcasts rather than Rush or Hannity or Beck.  Increasingly those shows are focusing on old people who don't have the internet. What's more they quite blatantly attack the internet as a shadowy domain of identity theft and liberal bloggers.

 

I'm also noticing that callers into talk radio are now rarely under 40.  This goes for sports and politics.  There can be little doubt that these shows are having zero influence over people born after about 1970. 

 

Rush doesn't suffer from an overabundance of self-righteousness? Are we talking about the same guy?

 

We're probably interpreting the word "righteous" differently.  Plus, with Rush you know some of it's an act.  How much is more or less in the ear of the listener, so to speak....

>It's losing more influence to the internet.

 

People listen to the radio in the car.  They don't get on the internet in the car, or at least shouldn't.  But now people are listening to all kinds of random stuff on satellite and on podcasts rather than Rush or Hannity or Beck.  Increasingly those shows are focusing on old people who don't have the internet. What's more they quite blatantly attack the internet as a shadowy domain of identity theft and liberal bloggers.

 

 

 

And those people spend a ton of time in the car. Hours and hours a week of lonely car travel traversing past the same warehouses and sitting at those incredibly boring lights outside Batavia and Canal Winchester with these hosts as their only friends.

Think tanks are public relations organizations that are pretending to be academic research organizations:

 

Unfortunately, one consequence of this fact was a degrading in the quality of experts the media turned to for analysis. The views of world class scholars such as Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution now carried no more weight than the simplistic talking points regurgitated by a Heritage Foundation analyst a couple of years out of college.

 

One reason for this is that it is tough to explain complex issues in areas such as health or taxation without sacrificing critical nuance. Scholars often become tongue-tied trying to speak in sound-bite and reporters have difficulty quoting them. It’s much easier to quote a Heritage analyst only concerned with coating the Republican agenda in Congress with a thin gloss of think tank respectability.

 

"Republican think-tank", isn't that an oxymoron?