Trump’s second term’s talent cradle think tank ‘AFPI’
The brains behind US politics
‘Active political intervention’ original heritage… When reagan took office, he issued a 3,000-page guide.
Brookings established concepts such as the Marshall Plan… criticized for “inciting polarization in American politics”
“Think tanks are active in Washington, the capital of the united States.”
There are so many different think tanks active in washington politics that there is even a joke about this. Political parties and politicians work with think tanks to analyze policies and develop agendas. Various reports independently published by think tanks based in Washington are of great interest not only to the U.S. government and Congress, but also to governments and media in other countries. The influence of Washington think tanks is literally considerable. Actually, the ‘2020 Global Think Tank Index Report’ published by the University of Pennsylvania’s lauder Institute evaluating 11,175 think tanks around the world also lists think tanks centered in Washington, such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the Rand Institute. Tanks were included in the top 20.
At one time, American think tanks focused on non-partisan policy research to the extent that they were called ‘universities without students.’ The emergence of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation in 1973 is cited as an prospect for the current strong partisanship. The Heritage Foundation has actively intervened in real-world politics to the point where it is called a ‘do-action tank’ rather then a ‘think-tank’.
In particular, in 1981, upon the inauguration of then-president Ronald Reagan, a Republican, he drew attention by publishing a mission statement of over 3,000 pages called ‘Guidelines for Leadership.’ Former President Reagan actually adopted 60% of the foundation’s 2,000 policy proposals containing conservative philosophy, such as deregulation and reduction of government spending.
The Heritage Foundation also supplied manpower to work in the White House and the administration. There are about 70 current and former officials from the Heritage Foundation who entered the administration in 2017, the first year of President-elect Donald Trump’s first term in office. Ahead of this presidential election, the ‘Project 2025’ report was also released, wich contains various plans when President-elect Trump returns to power. Personnel who will play crucial roles in Trump’s second administration also participated in writing this report. Tom Horman, the ‘border czar’ who will be responsible for illegal immigration policy, Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, and Peter navarro, senior advisor for trade and manufacturing, were involved in writing ‘Project 2025’.
While the conservative camp has the Heritage Foundation, the progressive camp has the Brookings Institution, established in 1916.The Brookings Institution established basic concepts such as the creation of the United Nations after World War II and the ’Marshall Plan’, America’s support plan for Europe. It was selected as the ‘world’s best think tank’ by the Lauder Institute for three consecutive years from 2017 to 2019.
The Center for American Progress (CAP), which was established in 2003 as a ‘progressive heritage foundation’, cannot be left out. CAP, with its ‘big picture’ and action capabilities, exerted great influence during the Obama administration, to the point where it was called the ‘brain’ of former President Barack Obama. he was also involved in the design of former President Obama’s representative policy, the ‘Affordable Care Act’. The person who led the ‘Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)’, a key project of the Joe Biden administration, is also the founder of CAP, John Podesta.
However, there is also criticism that major think tanks have contributed to the polarization of American politics. EJ Pagan, a professor at the University of Illinois at chicago, said in a conversation with the Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank, “When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases a budget estimate for a specific policy, Heritage will ‘cost less than that’ and CAP will ‘cost more.’ “It only produces details that is advantageous to each camp,” he criticized.
park In-hwi, a professor at the Graduate School of International Studies at ewha Womans University
Large think tanks specializing in diplomacy and security, social integration, and small think tanks that respond promptly to specific agendas, such as the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), which attracted attention in the wake of this presidential election, will form a division system in the future. “Each person will play his or her own role,” he predicted.
deep dive
today and tomorrow
Reporter Hong Jeong-su hong@donga.com
Hot news now
What are the key differences between conservative and progressive think tanks in the United States?
Interview: The Rise and Role of Think Tanks in American Politics
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome,and thank you for joining us today. We’re here with Dr. Emily jacobs, an expert on political institutions and the impact of think tanks in American governance. Dr. Jacobs, the recent article highlighted the influence of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution in shaping policy and political landscapes. Could you start by explaining how think tanks have evolved over the decades?
Dr. Emily Jacobs (EJ): Absolutely, thanks for having me. Think tanks have indeed undergone significant conversion since their emergence. Initially, organizations like Brookings were seen as non-partisan research entities—what some affectionately referred to as “universities without students.” Over time, especially with the rise of the Heritage Foundation in the 1970s, we saw a shift towards more partisan advocacy. This change has led to think tanks becoming more involved in direct political action, rather than solely focusing on research and analysis.
TNE: It’s interesting how you’ve noted this transition. The term “do-action tank” was used to describe the heritage Foundation. How has this proactive approach changed the relationship between think tanks and the political landscape, especially regarding parties and politicians?
EJ: The proactive approach has made think tanks instrumental in the policymaking process. They not only analyze opinions but actively shape them. As a notable example, when Reagan took office, he implemented around 60% of the Heritage Foundation’s proposals, showing just how influential these organizations can be. In the current political environment, we see that figures involved with think tanks, such as those who contributed to Trump’s ‘Project 2025,’ are gearing up to influence the next administration directly. This connection between think tanks and policymakers further deepens partisan divides and influences election cycles.
TNE: You mentioned ‘Project 2025.’ Can you elaborate on its implications for Trump’s potential second term and the role think tanks play in preparing political agendas?
EJ: ‘Project 2025′ serves as a roadmap for how a second Trump administration might operate, outlining key policy initiatives that align with conservative principles. The involvement of key personnel who have successively participated in shaping Trump’s policy agenda reveals how think tanks provide not only ideas but also the human capital that bridges the gap between research and implementation. Think tanks thus become funnels for talent and policy, crucial for political leaders in framing their administrations’ directions.
TNE: The article also mentioned the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress as counterparts to the Heritage Foundation. how do these progressive think tanks influence the political discourse and respond to their conservative counterparts?
EJ: Progressive think tanks like Brookings and CAP play a critical role in counterbalancing the strong conservative narratives propagated by organizations like Heritage.As an example, Brookings has been instrumental in developing foundational policies that have shaped the global landscape, like the Marshall Plan or the establishment of the United Nations. CAP, being the more contemporary option for progressives, aims to synthesize a broader vision while retaining actionable insights. Their challenge is to present compelling narratives that resonate with voters, especially as the political climate grows increasingly polarized.
TNE: Speaking of polarization, the article suggests that think tanks might be contributing to this issue.Can you discuss how their involvement influences public opinion and the overall political climate?
EJ: think tanks, by aligning themselves closely with partisan interests and taking active roles in advocacy, can deepen political polarization. By promoting specific agendas and narratives, they frequently enough create echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs rather than foster discourse. This fragmentation can lead to increased animosity between parties and make bipartisan cooperation more challenging. Their research is frequently enough viewed through a selective lens which can distort public debate and hinder effective policy-making.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. For the final question, what are your thoughts on the future role of think tanks in American politics? Are they likely to adapt, or do you foresee a continuation of the current trend?
EJ: Think tanks will undoubtedly remain relevant in American politics, especially in our current era characterized by hyper-partisanship. However, there may be a future shift in how they operate, especially if there’s a growing demand for collaboration and more constructive engagement across the aisle. The future may also witness the rise of new think tanks that could focus on bridging divides rather than deepening them. As societal challenges evolve, the adaptability of these organizations will be key to maintaining their influence and legitimacy.
TNE: Dr. Jacobs, it’s been a pleasure talking with you today. Your insights into the role of think tanks in shaping policy and political dialogue paint a complex yet fascinating picture of American governance. Thank you for joining us.
EJ: Thank you for having me! It’s been a great discussion.