Tevi Troy’s Excellent Piece on Think Tanks in National Affairs

Ricochet’s own Tevi Troy recently published a fantastic essay on the significance and history of think tanks in the U.S.  It is extremely well-researched.  Although I thought I knew a lot about think tanks (indeed huge part of the research for my book was to analyze media citations of think tank scholars), I learned a lot. The following is one of the many very informative passages of the piece:

Although they were becoming increasingly important in prominent policy discussions, think tanks in the 1950s and ’60s intentionally kept some distance between themselves and the most heated political debates of the era. They saw it as their role to inform but not quite to advocate — to help clarify policy alternatives, but generally not to choose among them. This may have been driven in part by their understandable desire to retain that all-important tax-exempt status. Still, most think tanks went well beyond the requirements of the tax code, having made a very deliberate decision to distance themselves from direct policy advocacy.

It was frustration with this studied aloofness that eventually ushered in the age of more activist think tanks, beginning especially on the right. In his book The Power of Ideas, Heritage Foundation fellow Lee Edwards describes a pivotal moment in this evolution when, in 1971, AEI produced a study of the benefits and drawbacks of the supersonic transport aircraft that Congress was considering funding for the Pentagon. The study was delivered to congressional offices a few days after the Senate had defeated funding for the project in a close 51-46 vote. After receiving the apparently tardy report, Paul Weyrich — then an aide to Colorado Republican senator Gordon Allott — called AEI president William Baroody to ask why the helpful analysis could not have been available before the vote. Baroody’s response, according to Edwards, was that AEI “didn’t want to try to affect the outcome of the vote.”

Baroody’s answer shocked Weyrich and his fellow congressional staffer Ed Feulner, who wondered what the purpose of such research was if not to affect the outcome of exactly that sort of vote. Weyrich and Feulner hatched the notion of a new think tank that would see as its mission the development of serious policy research to advance a broadly conservative agenda. Encouraged by Nixon White House staffer Lyn Nofziger, they began the work that would, in 1973, result in the creation of the Heritage Foundation.

  1. Nobody

    I remember the supersonic aircraft debate well.  The truth is that the debate wasn’t really about providing supersonic transport for the military.  It was about Boeing lobbying Congress for a subsidy to develop an aircraft that they knew would never make money: a supersonic passenger airplane.  

    It was all a mine-is-bigger-than-yours thing, because Britain and France were working on the Concorde.  Boeing knew full well that a supersonic passenger plane was a sure money loser, but if they could get Congress to pay for development of the thing under the guise of military necessity, well, fine.  

    Later on, the Soviets stole Concorde’s design for their TU-144, but even communists quickly realized the whole idea was economically unviable.  

  2. Hang On

    Nobody’s Perfect,

    The military has always asked for plane designs that are turned into commercial airliners with direct policy intention of making aircraft manufacturing in US number one in the world. Aircraft manufacturing, chip manufacturing, the internet, and a host of other cutting edge technologies are a direct result of government intervention and providing a market for civilian-related technologies that have been part of making American industry competitive. All the talk here about government not intervening and picking winners and losers just seems ridiculous. The govt. can and should pick winning and losing technologies and create a market place in which economies of scale are captured and cost curves can come down. We’ve been very good at it in the past. It’s one reason I don’t favor cutting military budgets. No vision on the left or right these days.

    That was a good article on think tanks. It would be interesting to know which ones on the state level have had influence on their state’s initiatives. For instance, which ones have Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal found use for if any.

  3. Garrett Petersen

    Working for a think tank would be my dream job.

  4. Tevi Troy
    C

    Thanks to Tim for the great plug for my think tank article.  Michael Allen also cited my piece in his influential Politico Playbook this morning.  As for Garrett Peterson’s musing that a think tank job would be a dream job, I can only say that I agree, as long as you pick the right think tank.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In