Thursday, November 28, 2013
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Return With Us To Those Thrilling Policy Days of Yesteryear
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Hoover Institution was a hotbed of stimulating conversation on the important domestic and foreign policy ideas of the day. Every afternoon at 3:30 a crowd of distinguished intellectuals would gather for coffee in the Polich Room of the Lou Henry Hoover Building. Sometimes 15-20 people would squeeze themselves around one rectangular table to join the discussion.
On any given afternoon, resident Hoover fellows could engage with Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Aaron Director, Edward Teller, Bertram Wolfe, Sidney Hook, Robert Conquest, Allan Meltzer, James Buchanan, Gary Becker, and other prominent thinkers. The Economist proclaimed that the Hoover Institution [of that era] was unmatched for its sheer intellectual firepower.
The group also met in a private dining room at the Stanford Faculty Club in what came to be known as the weekly “Friday Lunch Bunch.” Often one of the members would present his latest idea for discussion.
It’s no accident that the flat tax, deregulation, anti-ballistic missile defense, welfare reform, the all-volunteer army, and other public policy ideas were nurtured in this environment.
The young Senior Fellows in that room of yesteryear are now the Hoover Institution elders in their seventies, eighties, and nineties, mostly retired. Friedman, Stigler, Director, Buchanan, Teller, Wolfe, and Hook are gone, with others approaching the end of their lives.
In the past quarter-century, the Hoover Institution has grown dramatically in facilities, expenditures, research fellows, projects, publications, and public relations, but few new bold ideas have emerged from its fellows. This is Parkinson’s Law applied to think tanks.
Perhaps the times have changed and the Hoover Institution has changed with it. The Hoover Institution is no longer at the cutting edge of conservative policy reform. In that sense it has become mainstream, one among many think tanks offering modest changes in current programs or even defending old Bush-era policy decisions. The Hoover Institution was part of the era of Ronald Reagan. Fifteen years ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke several times at Hoover gatherings of donors, always with the same message. “The era of Ronald Reagan is over. Get over it. Find another paradigm.” “Those were the days my friend, we thought they’d never end....”
Monday, November 18, 2013
Earth, Air, Fire, Water: The Four States of Matter in Modern Robes
“Many philosophies and world views have a set of classical elements believed to reflect the simplest essential parts and principles of which anything consists or upon which the constitution and fundamental powers of anything are based. Most frequently, classical elements, dating from pre-Socratic Greece, refer to ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas, and fire is equivalent to plasma.” (From Wikipedia)
Search the websites of most colleges and universities in the United States and you will discover five fundamental principles that suffuse academic life, and which permeate every aspect of American culture.
The ordering of the five may change over time, but the list is universal, as if it was inscribed on a third stone tablet numbering the 11th through 15th commandments.
1. Equality. This requires poverty reduction, growth with equity, redistribution of income, and ever-increasing taxes on the rich and wealthy.
2. Sustainability. This requires stopping global warming that is causing climate change. Man-made greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced and should be taxed to save the planet. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass, must replace fossil fuels, regardless of cost.
3. Diversity. No matter how many words have been written demonstrating that statistical disparities do not imply discrimination (e.g., Thomas Sowell’s 17 books and countless articles), diversity must be expanded until underrepresented groups achieve or exceed proportional parity in every walk of life.
4. Democracy. The attempt to impose Western-style democracy, especially in the Middle East, has cost several trillion dollars and more than a million lives and casualties. Nevertheless, universities press ahead promoting democracy around the globe.
Search the websites of most colleges and universities in the United States and you will discover five fundamental principles that suffuse academic life, and which permeate every aspect of American culture.
The ordering of the five may change over time, but the list is universal, as if it was inscribed on a third stone tablet numbering the 11th through 15th commandments.
1. Equality. This requires poverty reduction, growth with equity, redistribution of income, and ever-increasing taxes on the rich and wealthy.
2. Sustainability. This requires stopping global warming that is causing climate change. Man-made greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced and should be taxed to save the planet. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass, must replace fossil fuels, regardless of cost.
3. Diversity. No matter how many words have been written demonstrating that statistical disparities do not imply discrimination (e.g., Thomas Sowell’s 17 books and countless articles), diversity must be expanded until underrepresented groups achieve or exceed proportional parity in every walk of life.
4. Democracy. The attempt to impose Western-style democracy, especially in the Middle East, has cost several trillion dollars and more than a million lives and casualties. Nevertheless, universities press ahead promoting democracy around the globe.
Student tour guides at universities used to tell prospective students that “At our university we teach you how to think, not what to think.” Now they tell them “Welcome to your Brave New World.”
Friday, November 15, 2013
Competing in the Policy Arena
What a difference 30-40 years make! The public policy winners in the 1970-1980s were those who placed op-eds in the WSJ, NYT, and WP, and covered by ABC, CBS, and NBC. A handful of think tank staffers dominated the policy arena.
No more. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of bits of information sprout from the Internet every day: the Web, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and others ready to burst on the scene. These supplement 600 Talk Radio stations, hundreds of cable channels, and Youtube.
Getting a signal to stand out in this daily barrage of bits is akin to finding a needle in a ever-bigger haystack.
How can a think tank improve its odds of success in marketing policy ideas in this crowded world?
1. Quality content. Churning out daily journalistic commentary has little to no impact in the policy arena. Hundreds of columnists outside think tanks with long established readership dominate this modem. Policy experts who slide into media punditry gradually lose the credibility of their academic expertise.
2. Timeliness. Most participants in the policy arena check their in-box first thing in the morning, as early as 7:00 AM. From then on, they focus on the tasks at hand. Distributing content late in the morning misses the lion's share of potential East Coast readers. Unless a think tank focuses on local issues, being on the West Coast constitutes a severe disadvantage in competing with East Coast think tanks for prominence.
3. Build social networks. The more a message can be retweeted or linked, the more likely it is to spread among related networks.
Some think tanks have moved more successfully into the new information age. Others still lag behind. There is likely to be a shakeout in the coming years as older think tanks try to retool and new thinks emerge to try to disrupt the old guard.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Hoover Institution is Mainstream, Part Five
Stanford University Press recently (2013) published a brief book entitled What Should Think Tanks Do? A Strategic Guide to Policy Impact. The author, Andrew Selee, Vice President for Programs at the Wilson Center, undertook an extensive set of interviews with members of several dozen leading U.S. think tanks that sought to identify strategies for setting policy-oriented goals and shaping public opinion.
The list included think tanks both inside and outside the Washington, D. C. Beltway. It included think tanks with recognized political or ideological ends and those that were politically neutral.
The Hoover Institution, located on the campus of Stanford University, was excluded from the think tanks surveyed in the study. Thirty years ago, during the Reagan administrations, Hoover would have been at the top of the list for inclusion in any study of think tanks. Its role as one of the most influential think tanks in the U.S. has diminished to the point of its exclusion from a study of what leading think tanks should do to influence policy.
The list included think tanks both inside and outside the Washington, D. C. Beltway. It included think tanks with recognized political or ideological ends and those that were politically neutral.
The Hoover Institution, located on the campus of Stanford University, was excluded from the think tanks surveyed in the study. Thirty years ago, during the Reagan administrations, Hoover would have been at the top of the list for inclusion in any study of think tanks. Its role as one of the most influential think tanks in the U.S. has diminished to the point of its exclusion from a study of what leading think tanks should do to influence policy.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Hoover Institution is Mainstream, Part Four
The Hoover Institution has recently established a Working Group on Foreign Policy to explore an array of foreign policy topics over the next two years. Its goal is to develop orienting principles about the most important policy challenges to better serve America's interests.
As of this writing, the working group consists of 11 members. Four are full-time Hoover Institution fellows. The other seven have appointments in the Department of Political Science (2), Department of History (1), and the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University (6). (Some members have two or more affiliations.)
The composition of this working group highlights the cooperation of the Hoover Institution and Stanford University on collective projects, a trend that has grown markedly in the past decade.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Contrasting Business Models: Information Technology (IT) vs. Public Policy Think Tanks (PPTT)
Living smack dab in the middle of Silicon Valley, along with watching Bloomberg West every day, affords a fascinating look into the world of IT.
The typical story begins with an individual or a small group of young people, aged 15-25, who have an idea they developed in a dorm room, basement, or garage. Next they secure funding to advance into the start-up phase. As the business expands, it moves into a small rental facility. At that stage, the business needs managers (CEO, CFO. COO, numerous Vice-Presidents), who often emerge from the small group of founders, or may be brought in from the outside. The managers are typically aged 25-35. Boards of directors are assembled from friends in the IT world. Successful IT firms go public, buy or build premises, hire thousands of top-flight employees, and become important players in the digital era. From age 35, most successful IT entrepreneurs shift from building start-ups to becoming angel investors or venture capitalists, financing promising new ideas and helping them get off the ground.
Fifty years ago, PPTT were few and far between. Today there are several thousand in the U.S., although 50 large ones receive the lion’s share of financial support and media attention. Today’s PPTT consist of researchers, administrators, and donors. At the leading think tanks, most researchers are scholars with advanced degrees, some drawn from academia and some holding joint appointments with universities. The vast majority of these scholars are aged 50-70. Administrators are often drawn from the ranks of think tank founders, former politicians and high-level government officials in both civilian and military life, and leading academic administrators in the 50-70 age group. (It should be noted that some have been at their post for one or more decades, aging in office.) The third group, the donors, are aged 60-90, as is seen at large dinners or conventions held by the leading PPTT.
Many scholars, administrators, and donors of PPTT belong to the revolving door set, rotating in and out of government. Most support one party or the other, and view PPTT as a refuge until their party recaptures office. While in the PPTT they recycle and refresh old policy ideas, which they push for adoption. Few bold new ideas are generated in PPTT given the age, experience, preferences, and money of the old guard. Despite their diminishing effectiveness, it is amazing to see the number of facilities that think tanks are renovating and building in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere around the country, to accommodate their financial and research growth (see Think Tank Watch).
What’s needed is for a wholly new PPTT on the IT model: thinkers aged 15-25, administrators aged 25-35, and donors/trustees aged 35-50 who understand the digital era of communication and marketing in all its forms.
Are there any out there?
The typical story begins with an individual or a small group of young people, aged 15-25, who have an idea they developed in a dorm room, basement, or garage. Next they secure funding to advance into the start-up phase. As the business expands, it moves into a small rental facility. At that stage, the business needs managers (CEO, CFO. COO, numerous Vice-Presidents), who often emerge from the small group of founders, or may be brought in from the outside. The managers are typically aged 25-35. Boards of directors are assembled from friends in the IT world. Successful IT firms go public, buy or build premises, hire thousands of top-flight employees, and become important players in the digital era. From age 35, most successful IT entrepreneurs shift from building start-ups to becoming angel investors or venture capitalists, financing promising new ideas and helping them get off the ground.
Fifty years ago, PPTT were few and far between. Today there are several thousand in the U.S., although 50 large ones receive the lion’s share of financial support and media attention. Today’s PPTT consist of researchers, administrators, and donors. At the leading think tanks, most researchers are scholars with advanced degrees, some drawn from academia and some holding joint appointments with universities. The vast majority of these scholars are aged 50-70. Administrators are often drawn from the ranks of think tank founders, former politicians and high-level government officials in both civilian and military life, and leading academic administrators in the 50-70 age group. (It should be noted that some have been at their post for one or more decades, aging in office.) The third group, the donors, are aged 60-90, as is seen at large dinners or conventions held by the leading PPTT.
Many scholars, administrators, and donors of PPTT belong to the revolving door set, rotating in and out of government. Most support one party or the other, and view PPTT as a refuge until their party recaptures office. While in the PPTT they recycle and refresh old policy ideas, which they push for adoption. Few bold new ideas are generated in PPTT given the age, experience, preferences, and money of the old guard. Despite their diminishing effectiveness, it is amazing to see the number of facilities that think tanks are renovating and building in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere around the country, to accommodate their financial and research growth (see Think Tank Watch).
What’s needed is for a wholly new PPTT on the IT model: thinkers aged 15-25, administrators aged 25-35, and donors/trustees aged 35-50 who understand the digital era of communication and marketing in all its forms.
Are there any out there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
