Yesterday the economic blogsphere ganged up on the Heritage Foundation. I believe it started with Paul Krugman. I added my thoughts, and Invictus added his over at the Big Picture. In short, if the Heritage Foundation has any internal credibility left, it should issue an apology and move forward.
However, this underlines a greater issue: the role of "think tanks" in public debate. First, I always place "think tanks" in quotation marks because these really aren't great organizations devoted to higher goals; they are groups of political hacks from both sides of the political aisle who are interested in pushing an agenda, and then twisting facts to move that agenda forward.
Sometime over the last year, I was asked by a liberal "think tank" to participate in a "debate" regarding manufacturing policy. I foolishly participated. The other parties' initial response was a bit less than dignified, after which time it took them approximately 1-week to post my response. In short, I was asked to "participate" in order to be "one-upped" by their resident expert. Needless to say, I was less than thrilled by this treatment, but hopefully became wiser in the ways to politics.
In short, both sides of the political aisle have their "experts" all of whom are essentially paid whores; give time enough money and they will say the sky is yellow, up is down, Kenny G is s great sax player, and the Cubs will win the Series this year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am not certain that I agree with you. For instance, do you believe that the Brookings Institution is nothing more than a lobbying group in disguise?
Yes, there are liberal hack organizations and conservative hack organizations, but the percentage of conservative organizations that are certifiably hacks approaches 100%. While there are some liberal hack organizations, the percentage seems to me to be lower.
Stuart -
In my experience, the liberal "hacks" are not motivated by money. Rather, they are like Focus on the Family or the NRA in that they are more "prudes". Extremists. You know, jerks. Heritage Foundation is a bunch of "whores", they will say anything for money. Greenpeace and the NRA are not motivated by money per se; rather, they are purists who think the truth is an acceptable casualty and the ends justify the means. They speak for themselves, but they are not above screaming to get their way. So with that in mind, are they necessarily better?
If you want an organization that's at least ideologically consistent, they usually DO something besides spout propaganda. The ACLU comes to mind. They are the most ideologically consistent organization I've ever seen well past the point of controversy, but aside from commenting on or endorsing legislation, they spend a significant percentage of their resources on pro bono work for cases involving civil liberties that has made them enemies on both sides of the aisle.
If both sides despise you then you know you must be true to your ideology. I generally agree that many "think tanks" are "paid whores" who's statements match a political or one-sided viewpoint. As someone once said, there are three sides to every story, yours. mine and the truth. Not very often we hear the truth from "think tanks".
Anon -
Whoever said that only wants to destroy everyone's credibility because that person has none. And the acid test for being "true" is NOT getting everyone to hate you. I daresay I can get both sides can agree that Jeffrey Dahmer was a bad person; that doesn't suddenly make him the paragon of ideological purity.
I usually speak the truth not because I insist I'm right, but because I don't have an ideology. I have an agenda, sure, but it's based on results, not beliefs. I don't care how it's done or what you call it; I go with what works. The person who calls that an opinion is the same idiot who gives all sides in a debate equal credibility -- in other words, a journalist. There IS such a thing as integrity, even if politicians have no idea what that is. This isn't hard to understand, but it's something the lying jerk will stop a nothing to prevent you from believing. Because as soon as my word is considered more reliable than the liar's, the liar has lost influence. It's the LIAR who gains the most by insisting everyone's biased.
I have opinions, sure. But the success of the New Deal, for example, is not an opinion. I know the jerks with agendas talk about "facts" like you can invent one just by making it up. The difference is that I don't need the New Deal to have succeeded to "win". If it truly didn't work I'd be against it, simple as that. I'm not going to get any effin' award for being "right". It is a fact the New Deal worked as intended and that's backed up by extensive data posted on this blog. The only real debate, the only place for actual opinion is whether or not the result was worth the cost. I have a very strong opinion on that, but someone who values low deficits over society's well-being is free to argue.
Post a Comment