Krugman's original attack on Cato et al. was remarkably anti-liberal (in the
classical sense or specifically in the sense of supporting a marketplace in
ideas). Krugman's underlying assumption (which, I think, Bill Dickens shares
to some extent) was that there are two kinds of intellectuals writing about
policy: objective scientists and biased ideologues. Krugman put himself in
the former category. It so happened that everyone on the right went into the
latter category. The purblind arrogance and self-righteousness of the
distinction was astonishing, even by Washington standards. What made it
anti-liberal was Krugman's assertion that the "ideologues" served no public
purpose, that they should not exist. Keep that in mind the next time someone
tells you that "liberals" are inclusive and appreciate diversity.
Now to Bill Dickens's points:
"Brookings is unique in having a large fraction of its budget come from
income from its endowment. We are truly beholden to no one. Although we
receive government contracts, corporate and individual donations, and
foundation money, no source is essential. A far more valuable asset to us
than any funding source is our reputation for independent research."
Brookings may be independent, but endowment income is not the cause.
Consider three examples of institutions that have independent incomes and
are heavily partisan: the Century Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,
and the Ford Foundation. There are many more throughout the political
spectrum. (As an aside, it makes sense that endowment income produces
shirking, not independence. Not true in Brookings's case but otherwise
robust, I think).
"Another thing. Although Brookings is sometimes called a "liberal" think
tank, that label ignores a fair amount of diversity in our make-up. The last
two presidents appointed at Brookings were Republicans, and the head of the
foreign policy program now is a Republican. There are several Republican
Senior Fellows including a former Republican congressman. Several members of
the staff who have Democratic leanings have, none the less, served in
Republican administrations (heck, I was invited to serve as a Senior
Economist to Bush's (the last one) CEA twice)."
This confuses diversity in partisanship with diversity in ideology. The
world of think tanks and foundations is filled with liberal Republicans
added to this or that to provide "balance." So this argument on its own
proves nothing.
However, I happen to think Dickens is partially correct here. The fact that
Bob Crandall and Pietro Nivola have neither been punished nor fired for
their views suggests that Brookings does tolerate a degree of diversity. Jim
Reichley also worked at Brookings for years, and Jim is about as
conservative as anyone I know. Still, Brookings has heavy partisans like
E.J. Dionne on board now.
Brookings was also quite liberal more or less up and down the line back in
the days when the country was quite left. Why have they become more
moderate? I once heard Charlie Schultz remark that he went into government
twice (with LBJ and Carter) and when he left both times, inflation and
unemployment had risen. Reality set in. In Brookings's case, the lessons
learned were translated through the economics profession. Or at least that
is my theory.
"Further, the Brookings charter gives a very minimum of ideological
guidance. Some people on this list might consider the institution's purpose
of improving the operation of government ideological, but that's pretty
broad guidance compared to the much narrower and less inclusive guidance in
the charters of organizations like Cato, Heritage and AEI."
On this point, see above: objective scientists versus biased ideologues.
Funny how only organizations on the right are "much narrower and less
inclusive."
The whole discussion of guns and social research raises deep and interesting
questions. I am rather skeptical that any organization that produces writing
and research on public issues will be neutral about values or politics.
Brookings's good government/vital center/establishmentarianism is a
political position too, one that is all the more effective because it says
it's not a political position at all. I think the more interesting question
is how we make public judgments about research and writing on political
issues. Duncan McRae once argued for a kind of review process for policy
work similarly to scholarly review. That may be a high standard. However, I
do think there is something like a review process in the policy community
(which includes part of the university world). Of course, it's also possible
that there is a review process where the final reviewers are members of
Congress or other policymakers.
John Samples
Cato Institute
