Heritage and conservative principles
There have been some blog postings around the internet this morning that have attacked the Heritage Foundation for being too cozy with the Administration. Below is some of the criticism.
Andrew Sullivan writes:
Wednesday night, libertarian Ryan Sager spoke to a little free-market group on the Hill called the Prosperity Caucus. Heritage often plays host to their events. But when Heritage found out that Sager was the speaker this month, the Prosperity Caucus was asked to take things elsewhere.
I don’t think many Republicans and conservatives have come out of denial yet about what was done to conservatism in Bush-Rove-DeLay years. Or perhaps the first stage of coming out of denial is anger at those who came out of it years ago.
Union Tribune editorial writer Chris Reed writes:
[I]t couldn’t be more disheartening and dismaying that the leading conservative think tank in the country, the Heritage Foundation, is blackballing — or at least keeping its distance from – conservative Bush critics. Especially after Nov. 7’s results, this is senseless. Congress is lost. Bush can’t seek a third term. There is nothing to be gained by pretending conservative ideals haven’t been ignored, jettisoned or blown up by the Republican version of LBJ…
…I noted with surprise that a San Diegan named Brian Tracy is on Heritage board. I’m going to try to get hold of him to ask whether he thinks it is healthy — either for Heritage’s reputation or the nation — for a powerhouse think tank to act as an extension of the Bush White House instead of as an autonomous institution devoted to established, unwavering ideas and principles.
This does seem to me to represent the Kos-ification of the right. There’s something about losing that makes people act like . . . losers.
With all due respect to Glenn (and I do have an enormous amount of respect for him), the Heritage Foundation did not lose this year. Republicans did.
These posts warrant a response. Below, is our official response from Heritage:
Andrew Sullivan has created a new meme, since picked up by the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Chris Reed and others, that contends The Heritage Foundation is “blackballing” conservatives critical of the Bush Administration. If Heritage were to start blackballing conservatives critical of the Administration, we’d have to blackball ourselves first.
Heritage has been a strong critic of “conservatives” – no matter where they are - whenever they stray from bedrock conservative principles. Witness our steadfast opposition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit—the biggest entitlement since the Great Society. Or our denouncements of the Administration’s now-abandoned protectionism of steel. Or our vociferous and ongoing criticism of Washington’s near-complete lack of fiscal discipline.
Bloggers like Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Reed have done their readers a disservice by attacking the Heritage Foundation when the real problem is that many conservatives elected as such have not stuck to principles. A quick visit to our Web site (heritage.org) and a cursory review of the policy papers and commentary there would confirm that Heritage remains the “autonomous institution devoted to established, unwavering ideas and principles” Mr. Reed desires.
As for the specific charges of blackballing: Failure to invite a non-member to a members-only event is not an exercise in blackballing. Declining to host an event when an alternative venue is available is not blackballing. ‘Nuff said.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
[…] Update: Heritage hasn’t banned Ryan Sager. It just didn’t invite him. They’re within their rights to do that. […]
November 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
That’s quite a response, however I think that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Reed are looking in the wrong place. When it comes to foreign policy, the Heritage Foundation has nearly reflexively supported the administration to the point where a senior analyst recently “resigned” over a book he co-wrote that was critical of the administration’s foreign policy. Moreover, I would take a good hard look at the Heritage Foundation’s “Progress in Iraq” page at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/Iraq.cfm There is not one article in there that is critical of the administration’s approach to the situation in Iraq. When one considers the number of individuals in the conservative movement plus Republicans (minus the fringe minority of so-called neoconservatives) that have serious disagreements with the war (neoconservatives btw have even been critical as of late), this is certainly not due to either chance or scholarship. If so many in the conservative movement have questions about Iraq, why not Heritage Sir?
November 21st, 2006 at 7:42 pm
[…] Their official response, which takes no issue I can see with any of the facts set out here, is here. […]
November 21st, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Mr. Nigma,
As pertains to any single issue, whether Iraq or some other specific issue, it’s not at all unusual for a think tank to take a decisive position, either for or against the administration in power. It would be unusual for a think tank to maintain positions such that all of them were in agreement with an administration. Likewise, going to a “liberal” think tank, such as the Center for American Progress, one is not likely to find a pro-Administration position on virtually anything, but certainly not Iraq.
Too, I doubt it’s an unthinking or “reflexive” support of the administration. The papers in the provided link represent studied arguments, not a reflexive kowtowing.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:13 am
it’s not at all unusual for a think tank to take a decisive position, either for or against the administration in power.
*sigh*
The WHOLE POINT of the discussion is that if the Heritage Foundation were a conservative think tank, it would have been making honest arguments all along, and would even now welcome small-government, fiscal-responsibility conservatives who played an important role in the 1981 tax cuts to relevant events.
Instead, as you correctly point out, Tim, Heritage has chosen to be a PR wing of the Republican Party, regardless of the effectiveness, or conservatism, of their ideas.
The poster above links to Heritage talking points on Iraq. All of them urge support for, or attacks on straw men from, the GOP’s talking points of the day.
The papers in the provided link represent studied arguments, not a reflexive kowtowing.
A studied kowtowing.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
Elvis,
I am not the Heritage press secretary, and this is my personal blog on which my employer allowed me to publish Heritage\’s official response. So this will be the only time I comment on this thread.
If you look at Heritage publications on the website and conclude they are nothing more than \”talking points\” I am afraid I cannot help you. They are what they are and I stand proudly by every publication Heritage produces.
And as was pointed out in the official statement, Heritage is not now, nor have they ever been in the business of shilling for Republican Administrations. I could list countless confrontations here but they would be unlikely to change your mind.
Finally, again referring to the Heritage statement. Failure to invite a non-Heritage member to a members only Heritage event in no way repudiates the work that non-member did for the conservative cause (and still does) and is in no way a sign of an anti-intellectual posture on behalf of the Heritage Foundation.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Well said, Tim.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Tim, I acted like I was responding to you, when in fact it was Michael B’s comment I had quoted. My fault, my apologies.
I’ll stand by the meaning of my comment, though.
The disinviting of people and groups on the basis of their criticism– from a conservative perspective– of the current administration provides support for the hypothesis that Heritage is a political animal. It selects which opinions to advance, and which straw men to criticize, partly on the basis of how it calculates it can help the Republican Party.
You’re also right that Heritage has an independent posture, and will sometimes criticize Republican actions. Think of it as a Republican entity slightly less independent than Lincoln Chafee.
The cheerleading and production of talking points in lieu of analysis on the war in Iraq, though, is a colossal blow to Heritage’s claims of intellectual honesty.
See, e.g.,
November 3, 2006
Stupid Soldiers: Central to the Left’s Worldview
by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1244
October 5, 2006
The Dangerous Consequences of Cutting and Running in Iraq
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and James Phillips
Executive Memorandum #1012
Congress should reject outright calls for America to cut and run…
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Elvis,
For one, Heritage itself has taken positions against the admin. in a manner which is very much in line with criticisms Bartlett has forwarded. Minimally that suggests your “hypothesis” rests on weak grounds, or absolute bare minimum upon grounds which deserve a skeptical/critical review, wherein more information is needed. At least a couple other equally critical points could be made, but you’re not forwarding your arguments upon rational or lucid grounds in the first place.