On the Intellectual Ramparts

• Share

As the day drew near for a House vote on aid to the Nicaraguan contras, the Heritage Foundation massed its forces on behalf of the rebel troops. In its snug maroon auditorium just a few blocks from the Capitol, it held an all-day seminar for congressional staffers. The guests of honor: two top contra officers and a Nicaraguan opposition journalist. A week later Heritage issued a brisk nine-page report titled Nicaragua's Terrorist Connection, copies of which were distributed by hand to all Congressmen and to targeted staff members. Heritage's pro-contra blitz was on. The reign of the pensive, passive, pipe-smoking Washington think tank is under assault. These venerable research institutions, which sprang up in the first decades of this century, are being upstaged by groups of intellectual crusaders that helped make the Republicans the party of ideas and paved the way for Ronald Reagan's election. The new "advocacy tanks" see themselves as more than merely idea incubators; they also take on the task of selling those ideas.

As a result, traditional think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, are finding it harder to maintain their public influence and attract funds from corporations and private foundations. A.E.I., once Washington's most influential citadel of mainstream conservative policy research, has perhaps been the most seriously injured by the rise of the advocacy tanks. In 1980 it looked as though A.E.I. would be the darling of the Reagan Administration. But as the advocacy tanks sprang up, it became clear that the thoughtful, stodgy institute was not at the cutting edge of influence. Corporate givers, who want a return on their money as well as some deep thinking, noted the change. After years of steady increases, donations declined slightly this past year. The institute had to cut planned spending by 25% during the past year and reduce its 154-member staff by about 45.

Think tanks are privately funded, nonprofit, tax-exempt foundations dedicated to public-policy research. Traditional ones may be slightly to the right or to the left of center, but they have made a show of evenhandedness in presenting their research. In the depths of their Washington buildings, ideas simmered until they percolated into books and monographs that laid the foundation for legislation. "These groups," says James A. Smith, a historian at the Twentieth Century Fund in Manhattan who is writing a book on public-policy organizations, "were inspired by the belief that people of divergent political viewpoints and interests could get together, discuss the facts and reach some kind of policy consensus."

But when Reagan swept into Washington, his appointments gave bureaucratic access to a different league of players: "movement conservatives," who had a specific and radical agenda in mind. "The conservative elite," says Sidney Blumenthal, author of the forthcoming book The Rise of the Counter- Establishment, "sees itself as a counter to the liberal establishment, which includes not only liberals but traditional Republicans. Institution by institution, the conservatives have built up an infrastructure in the shadow of the liberal establishment, to combat and finally to overthrow it. The think tanks are obviously an important part of the movement." Blumenthal calls the growth of this conservative intellectual elite "the most dramatic political development in recent American history."