I have always been deeply suspicious of all think tanks, mostly because I think people underestimate how easy it is to corrupt intellectual inquiry. Doing “research” from an explicit ideological viewpoint will result in bullshit, whether it’s Christianist intelligent design or Stalinist Lysenkoism. At the Heartland Institute — a hot bed of global warming denialism — here is the sort of “research” they do on the environment:
That’s right, the very first topic is Al Gore.
How on earth can giving money for this kind of garbage be tax deductible?
Over at ThinkTanked, there is an interesting interview with Brian Katulis of Center For American Progress, who describes what he sees as the good and the bad of think tanks. It would have been interesting to see him answer the question: Wouldn’t we all be better off if there were no think tanks? And could we may cause their extinction with simple changes to tax law?
Mike Kay
After a long week of defending the right to discriminate, I’m exhausted and will go Gault and cancel my appearance on this thread.
Kennedy
The same way that giving money to churches is tax deductible I suppose.
Mike Kay
I’m watching MTP right now, and the self-important gregory is butthurt.
I expect him to go full Sally and say, “Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn’t quite as sordid as this (Hurumph).”
beltane
Think tanks are a plague on democracy. Regardless of a think tank’s political orientation, the whole purpose of the enterprise is to concoct research data that supports a previously arrived at conclusion. This is exactly the opposite of how research is supposed to work, and I don’t see any value in the endeavor other than in a partisan sense.
Think Tank is just a euphemism for “propaganda mill”. That the media treats the product of such mills as having real, objective value is something that has always mystified me.
Brandon
I work on environmental issues in an office dedicated to other commercial matters. A woman, who works in support staff, who I know attended Liberty University, came into my office the other day and asked me verbatim… “Do you follow Al Gore?”
My response: “What do you mean follow? Al Gore is not the messiah and is not privy to any special knowledge communicated to him that no one else can see.” It was bizarre and quite surreal. I am just glad that she works in the support staff and not a professional function.
I hate ignorance.
beltane
@Mike Kay: What is Gregory butthurt about? I refuse to watch him, mostly because he looks like a dingy old pillowcase.
Incertus (Brian)
OT, but my friend Neal has put together a new logo for BP, one I think y’all will appreciate.
Incertus (Brian)
@Brandon: “Do you follow Al Gore?”
On Twitter, yes, but he rarely updates. He needs to get on that staffer.
beltane
@Brandon: This woman probably thinks you worship Charles Darwin too. They all think we worship him. My fourth grade son was accused of worshiping Charles Darwin by a fundie parent because he gave a presentation to his class on the subject of bird evolution.
Brandon
Just to follow up, these ass clowns actually believe that by discrediting Al Gore, they discredit climate science. It is clearly their agenda (I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes) and it’s truly bizarre.
arguingwithsignposts
Why is no one answering the important question of whether Gregory is crossing his legs?
jrg
Are you suggesting that Frank Gaffney’s “Center for Security Policy” should be subject to taxes? All right, smart guy, if that happens, where do we get our Security Policy from?
Brandon
@beltane: It is so sad. It really is. I realize the problem now. They equate their belief in creation with their following and worshiping God and Jesus. So they actually believe that if you believe in evolution or climate science (I have no idea how climate change has become conflated with all of this but for serving political ends), then you must be in the service of another man/being/entity. That way, they create their binary good/evil. I believe in God/Jesus = Good. You believe in Gore/Darwin = Evil. There is something seriously wrong with these people. And how the hell did climate change become equivalent of creation? I need an explanation.
MikeJ
Liberals want to tax thinking! Har Har, they’d never have to pay anything! Har Har.
I’m with you, but you’ve got to come up with a way to sell it. Personally I’d be fine with doing away with the entire concept of non-profit. I realise the benefit goes to the donors more than the institution, but I’m ok with that. Let the Sierra Club and the Catholic Church and the Heartland Foundation all pay tax on their profits. No profits, no taxes. Easy.
Incertus (Brian)
@Brandon: The truly sad thing is that for a lot of people–not most, but a surprisingly large number–that’s a legitimate position to take. We live in a country where the majority don’t understand how evolution works, even on a basic level. Is it surprising that they’d be thrown by a basic attack on authority?
gwangung
Not if you ever dealt with creationists. Authoritarian types don’t understand science. To them, it’s all a matter of doctrine, handed down from on high from an Authority. The notion that you can CREATE knowledge and that you can do it yourself, with your own effort, is simply not part of their world view.
bago
Fuckin Think Tanks. How do they work?
MIRACLES!
Mike Kay
@beltane: because rand paul canceled on his precious show.
SiubhanDuinne
I’m not making any excuses for this tank’s bullshit “research,” but in fairness, the list is arranged alphabetically.
jrg
The notion that you can CREATE knowledge and that you can
do it yourselfpull it directly from your ass, withyour own effortGod’s blessing, is simplynot partthe basis of their world view.Fixed.
MattF
There’s a specific bad thing about think tanks– they propagate the notion that most intellectual activity is politically motivated in one way or another. So, a conservative think tank takes on the task of refuting Al Gore, and, by the way, Paul Krugman also. It’s all politics.
I’ll just note, for the record, that “It’s all politics” is also what an orthodox Marxist would say. Teensy bit of irony here, maybe?
gbear
Is everyone aware that today is world turtle day? Just askin..
John Cole
Well, in fairness, Al Gore is fat. And he uses electricity at his house. And lies on planes. HYPOCRITE!
Brandon
@MattF: I believe that politically motivated research was the raison d’être of the Think Tank. The conservatives needed to create a space where they could develop politically motivated research that could challenge academic research without that pesky peer review process. And then the spent the last 20 years bitching about the liberal media and the liberal academy in order for their research to get the he-said/she-said treatment.
So now we have a scenario where the press reports that thousands of academic researchers say X, but the so-and-so institute says Y. Who knows what the truth is anyway?
@John Cole: You forgot that he also rides in essyouvees and takes aeroplanes! If that hypocrite wants to be taken seriously, he should hunt and gather for his food and live in a cave.
Joey Maloney
Call me a traditionalist, but I think I’d rather cause it the old-fashioned way – with a meteor strike.
Mike Kay
@John Cole: you forgot, there’s no difference btwn Bush and Gore
/butthurt hippie
chrome agnomen
i’ve always thought of think tanks as nothing more or less than aggregations of lobbyists. they almost invariably have a POV, and therefore most of their thinking will concern means of justifying that POV. ad hominem attacks are always a chief means, especially attacks originating from the right.
Cerberus
Yes, we would be better off if every think tank was thrown into the oil leak in the gulf with a lit propane torch tied to them.
Most of the “good” think tanks are entirely in existence merely to collate the information to respond to the scurrilous bullshit coming out of the “think tanks”. Furthermore, it degrades actual sociological and humanities-based research. We have actual academic departments in actual universities to answer these fucking questions. What is the scientific consensus on global warming? Let’s ask the scientists or read a strongly-reviewed review paper on the subject. What’s the economic or sociological impact of a particular political problem? Let’s ask say the people whose life work it is to study that fucking problem and work out the kinks.
Think tanks are there as obfuscations, something to sound impressive so one doesn’t need to bother with the reality-polluted world of the universities and by which the rich can openly attack the very notion of scientific or academic rigor.
There is no purpose for their existence and the fact that congress continues to use them rather than the existence academic statements on given subjects proves that they are nothing more than propaganda farms intentionally hoping to short-circuit reality for political advantage and I’d rather the “good” think tanks time was better spent on continuing research in their home universities than trying to endlessly chase down the meaningless lies from the “bad” think tanks.
Burn down the lot and seed their remains with salt.
Joey Maloney
@gbear: But is it turtle day all the way down?
MikeJ
@gbear:
You bet your sweet ass it is.
aimai
@gwangung:
That is a really interesting analogy.
aimai
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Mike Kay: I thought you were going Galt from this thread. ;-)
Phoebe
I think every charity I give money to is a think tank, or has a think tank in it, churning out the propaganda, be it Alley Cat Allies or The Innocence Project. And they have to, because they have to win hearts and minds if they want their agendas promoted. MY agendas promoted.
Why is this necessarily bad? It’s certainly bad if they’re morons fighting for bad things, but is the system wrong?
Libby
With a few exceptions, doesn’t seem to be much original thinking going on in think tanks. More like in the tank for a particular POV. Of course, when I agree with the POV, I don’t mind it so much, e.g., Radley Balko’s excellent work on the drug war excesses.
themann1086
Continuing the theme from the previous thread title…
Re: Think Tanks- if I had my way I’d have all of ya shot!
Mike Kay
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: I love this clip. Max Blumenthal fillets nader to the bone.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nader+gore&aq=f
Davis X. Machina
One of the things about the never-ending school reform debate that suggests it will never end is the extent to which the “research” driving it comes out of various Institutes, Centers, Foundations and so forth instead out of, you know, schools.
And baked right into the legislation is the requirement that whatever you do be ‘research-based’. You can find ‘research’ supporting anything. So you have to do whatever the panacea-of the-month club members of the school board heard a radio program about.
Mike Kay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfBjE8udAmA
Mudge
Keep in mind that tax deductions also apply to universities, which also conduct ideologically driven research. BP could give a few million to LSU to do research on oil spills..and we could all hope that intellectual independence prevails. I believe the Hoover Institution is part of Stanford University, as another example. Paul Krugman, a one man think tank, is partially supported by donors to Princeton (and the resultant endowment). Eliminating the tax deduction requires an across the board act, which hurts many institutions, or some sort of eligibilty test. I leave to you how to construct an elegibilty test to legitimatley eliminate the think tanks you dislike.
A more interesting aspect of tax-exempt status is the ability to earn 15-20% of their income from non-tax exempt activities (think Sierra Club T-shirts or AEI books). Plus tax exempt entities can be partners in taxable companies. This is largely how universities separate athletic income from regular income. They seek control, but cannot afford to pay the tax on the income. Donations to athletcic prgrams should not be tax exempt. I am not sure of this, however.
The unintended consequences of removing the tax deduction for legitimately formed think tanks are immense. As much as I abhor many of them, they are an evil abberation of a useful policy.
gnomedad
@Mike Kay:
I assume you mean this clip.
And yeah, it’s pretty good. He basically keeps handing Nader rope. It reminds me of the Piranha Brothers sketch:
“But the police have film of him nailing your head to the floor.”
“Well, yeah, he did that.”
Mike Kay
@gnomedad: at the very end he starts immigrant bashing saying close the borders they bring disease. You know who else plays the disease canard – Michael Savage.
He’s socially conservative. Not just on Terri Schiavo, but in this clip, Nader (of all people) says gay marriage is too unpopular to work.
AhabTRuler
But, but, but…universities are goooood, Think Tanks are baaaaaad!
Martin
Al Gore is so fat he has his own climate.
trollhattan
Gary Trudeau nailed this one down a few years ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×63276
If you know the results before you begin your research, you’re ready for employment at a belief tank.
Mike Kay
Al Gore is so fat he sells shade on a hot day.
PB
I am a huge fan of this blog, and of Doug’s takes in general, but I hope this new obsession comes with a few layers of nuance heading forward.
Would we be better off without think tanks? Seriously? Why not just go all the way and say we’d be better off without universities because of bad apples like Bob Jones University?
This smacks of one of the less severe, but still troubling, forms of anti-intellectualism. I hope going forward there’s some attempt to distinguish the worthy think tanks from the ones who are bothering you. In fact, that would be a good place to start — define think tanks. Are you referring to Heritage? If so, I’m with you: we could without just fine. What about the Woodrow Wilson Center? Or the Urban Institute? Here, you’ve lost me.
Mark S.
@PB:
I don’t think universities and think tanks are remotely comparable. There are a few oddball universities like Liberty and Bob Jones. Probably over half of the think tanks are right wing hack shops.
It’s gotten to the point where I don’t trust any “study” that comes out of a think tank. I’m sure there are a few good ones, but most of them are nothing more than prettied-up lobbyists.
PB
@Mark S.
They’re not exactly comparable, but Doug’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would have us better off with both.
I’m just being picky, perhaps, because I don’t disagree with the idea that there’s a ton of agenda-driven think tanks out there who produce crap not worth the paper it’s printed on, but that’s true of blogs, too, and lots of other things. I’d prefer Doug qualify who needs to be thrown out and why, rather than just say “think tanks are bad.” The latter weakens the force of what should be a good point.
burnspbesq
@MikeJ:
The Sierra Club isn’t exempt, because it engages in lobbying.
burnspbesq
If you want to deny tax exempt status to organizations that engage in “research” of which you don’t approve, you pretty much have to give up on the idea of having any tax-exempt research organizations, including universities. Or are you comfortable with a bunch of GS-11 IRS agents deciding what is or isn’t good science?
Spaceman Spliff
@gwangung:
Authoritarian types don’t understand science. To them, it’s all a matter of doctrine, handed down from on high from an Authority.
Much of the confusion about this comes in with the terminology that things in the world are constained to “obey physical law”. That terminology immediately leads to the presumtion that, where there is a “law”, there must perforce be a “lawgiver”, which creationists and authoritarians are always happy to conflate with the object of whatever myth that their tradition (heh, I almost typed “tardition” there) provides.
Logically, being prior to any such “physical laws”, their presumed creator/lawgiver is obviously not to be constrained by its own “creation”; thus the concept of “miracles”, and the whole water-into-wine shtick becomes possible (to sell, that is).
It seems the primary characteristic of being the “lawgiver” is the ability to flout the “law” at whim. This leads to the observed first rule of conservative governance:
The same laws shall apply to equally to everyone, except me!
Honus
@MikeJ: I don’t know if anyone else caught that, but I’m awarding you the thread win right there.
Remember November
Where can I give money to a non-profit think tank that debunks these Denialist think tanks( or in other words- septic tanks)