Heritage’s first president, Paul Weyrich, was a long-time associate of the John Birch Society (Extra!, 7-8/96). (photo: Chip Berlet)
The New York Times (2/24/14) is reporting on some changes at the country’s most powerful right-wing think tank. The Heritage Foundation is evidently moving further to the right under the leadership of former Sen. Jim DeMint. But a deeper sense of the group’s history might reveal that the changes might not be as dramatic as advertised.
The headline of the piece is “In the DeMint Era at Heritage, a Shift From Policy to Politics,” which suggests that Heritage formerly had a track record of serious policy analysis. The Times‘ Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman report that while Heritage once “provided the blueprint for the Republican Party’s ideas in Washington,” it has more recently “become more of a political organization feeding off the rising populism of the Tea Party movement.” The election of Barack Obama, the Times suggests, “drove the foundation to take on a more political bent.”
The story is that under the “new era” at Heritage, the research is suffering, and “some of the group’s most prominent scholars have left.” The piece points out that the group’s rightward drift means that “staff members often decided, with little consultation from Heritage Foundation scholars, which legislation to support or oppose.”
And the Times adds that two recent hires are “known more for their advocacy journalism than their scholarship.”
Readers will certainly get the impression that the “scholarship” of the Heritage Foundation is being compromised. But let’s remember what kind of scholarship has actually been produced by the group. As Norman Solomon (Extra!, 7–8/96) wrote almost two decades ago:
In his book The News Shapers, professor Lawrence Soley of Marquette University observes that “among beltway think tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials.” Instead of seeking quality, “the Heritage Foundation appears to strive for quantity”—feeding a glut of material to Congress and the news media.
He adds that “the biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers, but former Republican officials.” (These days they include Heritage “fellows” Edwin Meese, Jack Kemp and William Bennett, all highly paid for their expertise.) “Given the backgrounds of individuals at the Heritage Foundation, there is little question as to why it is more accomplished at lobbying than research.” Soley describes Heritage position papers as “sophomoric.”
Indeed, a look at Heritage’s founders, donors and early leaders (Extra!, 1/96) reveals that many were not scholars but far-right activists and racists.
Robert Rector (cc photo: Gage Skidmore)
One of the group’s most prominent analysts is Robert Rector, who appears frequently in media to argue that the poor aren’t actually that poor (Extra!, 1/99; New Republic, 11/8/11). The group has been an important part of the climate change denial lobby (Media Matters, 11/28/12). And Tom Edsall reported in the Washington Post (4/17/05) that the foundation shifted its line on the Malaysian government based on a business deal: “Heritage’s new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage’s president, began representing Malaysian business interests. ”
There are plenty of other examples, as Reed Richardson noted at The Nation (5/10/13):
- What about that time in 2011 when Heritage was caught red-handed arbitrarily swapping out unemployment figures to make its analysis of the House GOP budget appear more plausible?
- Then there was the 2010 fiasco where Heritage flagrantly cut 10 pages from a British environmental analysis in a shameless attempt to introduce doubt about climate change, conflicting the actual report’s conclusion.
- Let’s not forget the Heritage blog post from 2008 that subtly warned a United Nations Green Economy Initiative was merely a first step on the road to Nazi/Soviet collectivism and oppression of freedom.
A very public embarrassment over dubious Heritage research on immigration led some journalists to write about how Heritage was supposedly drifting away from its more rigorous scholarly roots. But historian Jason Stahl (Salon, 10/20/13) did a good job of challenging that narrative:
Today’s Heritage Foundation is what the think tank’s founders had in mind when they incorporated it in 1973. Heritage’s founders and caretakers have always prized the speed of policy production over rigor, and seen their institution as aligned with both conservative elites and the grass roots. Heritage has always sought to push the Republican Party to the maximal right-wing position, even if that meant disagreeing with Republicans in public.
He noted, for instance, that an early Heritage memo was
dedicated to legislative battles they were currently engaged in, including killing various wage and price controls, cutting funding for urban mass transit, making sure striking workers did not have access to food stamps, passing legislation to end busing in public schools and passing a balanced budget amendment, to start. In many of these battles, Heritage fought moderate Republicans and attempted to pull them rightward. Such has been the case over the institution’s entire history.
That “entire history” has been glossed over by Steinhauer and Weisman in an effort to give Heritage a more respectable past.
Well, it’s not as if the right has anything intellectually sustainable to say.
This is an important issue. I don’t know how hard it would be to exaggerate its importance to media criticism. Heritage has never done serious scholarship. Scholarship is not supposed to start from a preconceived conclusion, with the supporting evidence then collected by cherry picking and distortion, while ignoring all contrary evidence and information. A common trick is to claim that actual scholarship and science are inherently flawed- a claim alleged but never supported by serious evidence- because they pursue a “liberal agenda.”
That Heritage Foundation’s mission is to distort reality isn’t the most important issue here. Rather, it’s how corporate media consistently presents Heritage Foundation’s pseudo-scholarship as an equally tenable position with that of more rigorous scholarship. A perfect example of this is climate change denial. Their position has no scientific basis whatsoever. Doesn’t matter. The corporate media is (or has been) neutral. Notice that this means that neutrality is not objectivity and, at least in this case, creates its own kind of right wing bias.
Notice how neatly this complements the pervasive and false claim that corporate media has liberal biased.
One cannot expect that the dumbing down of our children in public (and, I might add, private) schools will not trickle “up” to universities and even the “best” graduate schools. To expect that is to expect nature to violate itself and is naive. Thus young scholars will arrive at school and graduate later with a pretty clear set of prejudices and blind spots that have been created or furthered instead of eradicated by their teachers.
Similarly, it is naive to expect that this phenomenon, perfectly natural given the condition of our two major social correctives–our schools and the press–that these intellectual deficiencies will not cut across party lines.
So really we have to face it that the pot (whether Left of Right) calling the kettle black (whether Right or Left) is pretty unsophisticated intellectually. If you can’t see this then you are in bondage to a mere idea, to a relative conception. Sophistical partisan banter where the ends of my group justify any means, any violations of principle and good form, is a pretty good indication that those involved in it have never read, or incorporated into their lives the teachings of the Classics, whether ancient or modern.
Indeed, if you were to ask the majority of these partisans to state one universal principle that guided their thought and actions and/or which they would die for, most of them would look at you with a blank face or just change the subject–a good technique in any battle except one that requires the humble good faith of a genuine conversation. AND, I can guarantee you that today a good number of these would respond by telling you that no such “universal principles” exist–which would go a long way toward demonstrating just how free they feel to stand here one day and over there the next, “with equal indifference to reason.”
So, am I accusing Hart of being this sort of public intellectual? No, not at this point. But, concerning some things it pays to be more than just a little bit careful, does it not?
In closing I would say to readers, and to Mr. Hart, in dangerous times like these it would be wise to find and use those principles that might unite and help to form solidarity with those we criticize “on the other side.” After all, they ARE our neighbors, are they not? Those common principles are waiting there to use for those who are sincere enough to step out of their collapse into one side of a two sided non-two called “human nature.” or, if you like, the finite human mind. As an example, why not start with a common enemy, big out-of-control government, a thing that has many faces all of them ugly: the security state, imperialism, the militarization of our civilian police, inaccessible representatives (Hell, after taking two degrees and teaching for 17 years at the same university I could not even see my own dean–much less the president!) secrecy and the outright lie as the primary methods of all government bureaucracies, a bewigged judiciary who have, apparently, never read the Constitution, and what is beginning to look more and more like an authoritarian police state where the police and various bureaucratic officials kick down doors and assault the tranquility of citizens without due process of law, etc., etc. Give it a try; it won’t kill you. In the near future you may very well need as many good neighbors as you can get. JWC
Michael Lubin what you say is obviously false. The human mind is one coin with two sides. That sophistical opportunists on the Right bend the rules, i.e., are not in good faith with the conversation, is not proof that there are not sound principles hinging their more sincere fellows. But that they shoot themselves in the foot instead of forging relations with their neighbors is not unique to them. And if you think that it is unique to them then you just prove my point.
The Left has plenty of those who bend the rules and use fallacious argumentation for the simple reason that they (like many on the Right) operate out of the notion that the (their) end justifies the means to achieve it. And, if you won’t concede this then you have just proved my point again. Both have their blind spots. Find those out, then you will be doing genuine honest intellectual work and not find yourself guilty of imagining that the plank in your own eye is nothing against the “mote of dust” in that of your neighbor.
Also, that the Republicans are caught up in emotionally charged side issues (a woman’s body, sexual orientation, war–but notice that war budgets are always passed by both sides of the house) is not proof that there are not sound Republican principles–such as conservatism rightly understood.
The rule to follow in all of this comes from medicine, “physician heal thyself.” In other words clean your own house first; then take on that of your neighbor. First, find the blind spots in your own party.
Let me prime the pump. Bill Moyers published regularly on his own site and on Truth Out and elsewhere. In nine out of ten essays he will reveal the manifold, egregious, and even violent excesses of big government. (For one example see his interview this week entitled: “The deep state hiding in plane sight” which outlines the degree to which a few elites control things entirely outside of democratic processes and in violation of every principle that we hold dear!) Then in the tenth essay or show he will attack his responsible gun-owning neighbors who think the Second Amendment has a vital importance for our Republic and in the process never addres the implications of this–namely that the only entity that will then have guns is the very government who he has just told you is not just irresponsible but criminal in its actions! How’s that for a blind spot? That, my friend, is a total disconnect, logically, and I only hope that it IS a blind spot because if it is not it is something worse.
Please think about these things. As ancient wisdom has it, “no gentleman is a partisan.” There is a higher position–and it has neighbors on both sides. JWC
Kevin Bradshaw: You are right; the corporate media is not Liberal. That is a myth. The corporate media is corporate; it is about money and power interlinked and is as far away from a free press as it could be. But insofar as it is corporate it is necessarily both Left and Right. Why? Because for them politics is not about ideas but about control and they will use whatever side is advantageous at the time. That I trust you will concede–or risk the charge of either having your own blind spot, or of simply being a sophist for whom the only rule is that the (their) end justifies any means they choose to arrive at it.
Now, given that, and the importance to these monsters of controlling the means of communication and its various mesmerizing echo chambers, we must look to the possibility, and keep a vigilant eye on it, that more and more of the “alternative” media are also under the sway of corporate influences, or those entities like the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, etc., who,under the guise of philanthropy, do the bidding of those whose only motive is power and greed.
I think that in order to be honest we must annihilate the lie whether it is on our side or the other–and we had better begin with our own side. That and only that will justify and make good our criticism of the others. And, into the bargain, it will make us better men, eh? Thanks for your comments. JWC
Mr. Hart: Of course we know that your chosen topic is the excesses and deficiencies of the scholars at the Heritage Foundation. But there is no quicker way to be labeled a partisan than to criticize the opposition without a brief reference to how the same sins are committed by one’s own side–a thing that goes without saying, but, apparently, must be said. Furthermore, it is easy to do and would have the immense advantage of offering a very very healing thought to one’s friends who might be astray from the principle “physician heal thyself” before worrying about the mote of dust in the other man’s eye.” I think this is worth thinking about and the honorable method to use as a rule, a healing rule. After all, ‘no gentleman is a partisan.” (Lao Tzu)
P.S. While I am exasperated with their focus on nasty side issues like homosexuality, and a woman’s right to decide for herself what she does with her own body, I read “the New American” because it fills in for the various, and analogous, blind spots that I find in say, “Truth Out.” An example of this would be the mantram repeated endlessly at Truth Out and elsewhere to the effect that “big out-of-control government is dangerous and harmful for reasons a, b, c,…..thru x, y, and z, but, let’s make sure that that same big irresponsible and murderous government are the only ones to have guns!” And that, Mr. Hart, is a glaring and obvious blind spot if there ever was one. I hope you agree. Thanks for your essay. I only hope to in the future see more of the essential health (both spiritual and political) that comes with a vigorous self criticism. JWC
Mr. Clark,
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph, and I think it’s entirely accurate. As to alternative forms of media or news, I don’t know which programs you are referring to specifically. But there’s no doubt that funding from the likes of Ford or Rockefeller will have the effect of keeping the discussion within bounds deemed politically acceptable by corporate media. I don’t know if this is an issue for “alternative” media because I’m not sure what you mean by that, but supposed independent sources like PBS and NPR are clearly affected by the sources of their funding.
I don’t know what you mean though in that last paragraph.But I personally believe that there is something called reality, and that there are empirical methods of inquiry that can be used to generate more reliable conclusions. This data can be compared to the claims made in corporate media (and any other form of media for that matter) and we can determine to what extent we are being mislead. Also, once we determine who benefits from the claims made therein, we can draw the most likely inference as to what purposes corporate media propaganda serves. (Call corporate media propaganda and see the looks you get, people are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word. “That’s something they do in North Korea, not on my television.”)
Michael Lubin, they are profoundly dogmatic.
The United States could do without all these college educated arrogant think tank personalities who make the policy and laws to our Congress men instead of our congressmen doing their job to represent the United States and its people.
These think tank personnel sit on their lazy rears deciding how our country and the world should be run and go from job to job all their lives caring little for the public because their lives are not anything near the public’s .
They are too lazy to put in a decent day’s work. Just like Kissinger and all the jerks in every administration, They are promoted from every imaginable job all their lives back and forth from business, journalism, government and or its agencies. or media. and nothing but
parasites on society who are only there to feed their ego and those above them to determine how the world, its laws and events must be accomplished.
Just like sports figures who because of some skill in a sport made into a business and facts and figures created to make any analysis seem a reality, earn millions and live a life of Reilly while those who provide their wealth has no life style comparable. .
I for one would like to find solidarity with my brothers and sisters in the Republican Party mr Clark. On a human level i identify with them. Democrats are in the same bag. Politically the whole bag is irretrievably broken. Sorry solidarity and survival is tied to sustainability – you may call it conservatism as I do, but please don’t apply that description to the Republicans – it only reaffirms the anti-Christ.
krAoHerzWwyjwWzLSV 2028
We are about to release a large annotated bibliography on how think tanks influence policy – some surprises in there…
Later this month, we’re putting out the first ever ranking of how transparent 150+ think tanks are about where they get their money from.
Follow us on twitter @Transparify or sign up for email updates to keep in the loop about our research.
http://www.transparify.org
We are about to put out a big compilation of media stories on how think tanks influence policy – some surprises in there…
Later this month, we will release a study on which think tanks disclose who funds them, covering 150+ think tanks.
Keep in the loop by following us on twitter @Transparify, or sign up for email updates.
http://www.transparify.org