Think Tanks Follow the Money

Robert Samuelson states some facts about think tanks that, for some reason, aren't often voiced by elite columnists:

Most think tanks were once idea factories. They sponsored research from which policy proposals might flow. In the supply chain of political influence, their studies became the grist for politicians’ programs. But think-tank scholars didn’t lobby or campaign. Politicians and party groups did that. There was an unspoken, if murky, division of labor. This was [Stuart] Butler’s world.

But it’s disappearing, and many think tanks — liberal and conservative — have become more active politically. They are now message merchants, packaging and merchandizing agendas for a broader public. Heritage has long been aggressive in peddling its message and has become more so. In 2010, it created an affiliate — Heritage Action — that lobbied and mobilized grass-roots conservatives. In this world, I surmise, Butler’s role is diminished. By contrast, Brookings remains a bit more traditional....

What’s occurring is a subtle change to a major American institution. Heritage is not alone. To varying degrees, other think tanks face similar pressures. They will probably do less thinking and more politicking and self-promotion.

Probably? There's no probably about it.

Why would Brookings hire a right-wing ideologue like Stuart Butler? Why would Heritage hire Jim DeMint, a man nobody would mistake for a great thinker, as its leader? Follow the money.

I'm reminded of David Frum's (interesting, but flawed) novel, Patriots, in which a fictionalized think tank... I can't recall the name he used, but "The American Heritage Institute" might be about right... has relegated the old-timers who do traditional, nonpartisan research to its "founder's floor", while the newer "scholars" engage in little more than a free-for-all of politicking and money-grubbing.

"It's So Sacrilegious, I Have to Add to the Problem"

Jim DeMint's self-parody.

And You Do What For a Living, Again?

Do they come up with statements like this on their own, or is this what their handlers tell them to say:

"There's an earthquake election going on all over this country," said Incumbent Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who CNN projects won his bid for re-election to a second term in South Carolina. "People have realized that the future is in their hands, not in that of politicians."

Yah... Not a single politician among today's election winners....

Responding to Concerned Constituents

In relation to a bill that simplifies foreclosures quietly sailing through Congress, this seems credible:

The House actually had passed identical bills twice before, but both times they died when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act.... Senate staffers familiar with the judiciary committee's actions said the latest one passed by the House seemed destined for the same fate. But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

The staffers said they didn't know who these constituents were or if anyone representing the mortgage industry or other interests had pressed for the bill to go through.

After all, I'm sure that Senator Leahy's office is flooded with calls from homeowners, concerned that their houses weren't being foreclosed upon quickly enough.

These staffers said that, in an unusual display of bipartisanship, Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee's senior Republican, also helped to engineer the Senate's unanimous consent for the bill.

Neither Leahy's nor Session's offices responded to requests for comment Wednesday.

It's nice how the parties can come together to look out for the little guy.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.

So cynical! Why, all you have to do is as the sponsor:

Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said in a statement that there is "absolutely no connection whatsoever" between his bill and "the recent foreclosure documentation problems."

Aderholt said he'd first introduced the measure five years ago, before the foreclosure crisis and related scandals. He said he's "disappointed" in the veto and added that it's a matter of a "misunderstanding."

See? It's a proposal that's been around for five years and kept dying in Senate committee. So why would you believe that its sudden, quiet passage through the Senate by unanimous consent at the behest of "concerned constituents" was anything but "business as usual"?

Update: And the very next day.... (Purely a coincidence, I'm sure.)

Update 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Foreclosure Crisis
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Elizabeth Warren, "Simplistic and Hyperbolic"?

Sins Fred Hiatt and his crew, of course, would never commit. Seriously,

We have qualms about Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor President Obama has put in charge of setting up the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The new body, which will have a half-billion-dollar budget and wide regulatory power over mortgages, credit cards and the like, was her brainchild. It emerged from Warren's zealous campaign against what she called the "tricks and traps" of the banking industry, which has made her a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Like many such activists, however, Ms. Warren can be simplistic and hyperbolic.

It seems like a cheap shot, and the fact that no member of Fred's editorial board had the guts to sign the column reinforces that impression. I have not followed everything Professor Warren has said, and pretty much anybody can be simplistic and hyperbolic at times. Even Washington Post columnists.¹ But seriously, not even one "for instance"?

For that matter, if "simplistic and hyperbolic" is a big problem for you, no qualms over running this? Those problems are balanced out by its surfeit of platitudes and partisanship?
----------
1. Arguably, "simplistic and hyperbolic" is Charles Krauthammer's preferred style of writing.