Think Tank Thoughts

I (and I assumed a couple of y’all) almost applied to intern at a think tank. If I am being honest, I am slightly glad that I never did because what I have learned about think tanks in these last couple weeks of studying them leads me to believe that I might not have been satisfied.

That’s because I didn’t really know what a think tank even was. I still am not quite sure what a think tank is wholly. And unlike interest groups where average Americans hold strong opinions, when it comes to think tanks, the public doesn’t know that much or hold any real opinions regarding think tanks. I think that this is a red flag on the credibility of thinks tanks altogether. Although our professor and our speaker believe that think thanks produce a “net positive” in the political world, I would argue that the lack of transparency, the ambiguity, and the obvious partisanship of thinks thanks invalidate this positive. 

Rich labels think tanks as “independent, non-interest based, non-profit organizations that produce and principally rely on expertise and ideas to obtain support and influence policy-making.” Unfortunately, the scholarship and reality of think tanks do not support this ‘definition’ totally. Specifically, the think tanks are not wholly “independent,” nor are they “non-interest based.”

One aspect of think tanks that weakens any credibility or authority is the lack of transparency, specifically in regards to donations. While our speaker’s think tank does well to share who their donors are and offer information to the public, the majority of think tanks do not do this. And according to our speaker the amount of funding think tanks receive is ‘absurd’. Medvetz used the term “disparate” to explain the funding and resources that think tanks rely on – reliance could lead to a lack of integrity, or a conflict of interest, in research. Who is donating to think tanks? And is the money influencing the research? Our speaker questioned this also, wondering if the power of money was strong enough to push narratives and offering a solution of using government money to fund both sides to avoid outside influence or other influencing factors. While the public is in uproar over which special interests donate to which representatives and question whether these donations have any influence, there does not appear to be the same concern when it comes to research funding. However, I would agree with our speaker that money has some influence on what type of research is being done and for what angle it is being produced. Our speaker also argued that money could somehow “buy silence,” to produce works that conform to a donor’s ideas and do not challenge the status quo or question the authority (or the donor’s beliefs). 

Another aspect that detracts from any level of credibility is the overall lack of knowledge or formal definition that is available. While Rich may have his definition, Medvetz argues that any definition of a think tank is not completely viable or known, using the term “structurally ambiguous,” and even our professor who works for a think tank has described them as “occupying an ambiguous role in the policy-making world”. I believe that this lack of knowledge – of how a think tank operates, hires, influences, etc. – does nothing to lend these institutions credibility or authority. Whereas with special interests, while there is not an extensive pool of research, there has been credible research done and analysis into how special interest operate and how they influence. This lack of scholarly attention, according to Rich, has allowed think tanks to hold a historical low-profile contribution to policy-making and has made it difficult to account for the role of ideas and expertise in American politics.

The last straw in the camel’s back for credibility is the obvious partisanship that is known with a majority of think tanks. For example, the Heritage Foundation leans right, and the Worldwatch Institute leans left, no question about it. Our speaker was somewhat adamant that think tanks should officially adopt an ideology and claim it openly, which would lend to more transparency and perhaps some credibility. But most usually attempt to maintain that “non-interest based,” unbiased front to claim authority. And while I understand that special interests are also ideological, they are at least very open about it and their influence is generally known. Rich describes think tanks as less organizations that are committed to objective analysis of policy problems, but more as organizations that turn experts into advocates and policy information into communication nowadays, pushing different narratives to fit different molds. They have moved on from their intended role as producers of credible expertise or research and objective writing and are now more focused on contributing to potential debates over ideas. Medvetz explains how one type of policy expert is a “salesman” who is good at selling an argument and, as according to our speaker, making political jargon more understandable for politicians which could possibly open a door for influence. This partisanship makes it very difficult for researchers and politicians and the special interests who also use the research to find common ground and realize the truth. Our discussion in class also lends to this idea of think tanks being echo chambers with the power to influence, but not necessarily change ideological beliefs through facts, especially since most of the time facts might not be found in the middle ground. How this partisanship influences policy is another question that cannot fully be answered – as I’ve mentioned in class, I watch a lot of hearings, and think tanks policy experts or representatives are usually available for comment, or a representative uses research done to prove a point – however, how credible are these ‘facts’ that are being quoted? And could research from a think tank on the other side of the aisle contend or corroborate? If the facts contend, or cannot be found in the middle ground, why should they have any part of policy decisions or representatives’ arguments? 

Beyond these points, I believe that think tanks are well-intentioned and were created to bring forth that “net-positive” our speaker and professor both believe in. If think tanks adopted different measures, perhaps some of the ideas that our speaker put forth, and strived to be less ‘ambiguous and weird’ they could have a credible and authoritative role to play in policy decisions. Until then, I will remain skeptical, albeit hopeful.