Having dealt with queries about whether I hate Republicans and whether my views have changed on anything, the newest edition of “Question of the Week” asks for my opinion about Senator DeMint moving over to become President of the Heritage Foundation.
Variants of this question came from several people, perhaps because folks know that I spent more than 15 years working for Heritage.
The short answer is that I think DeMint’s move generally is a good thing.
But first, the bad news. It is unfortunate that Senator DeMint no longer will be in the Senate. We need as many “Tea Party” lawmakers as possible since they are willing to fight for small government even when it means causing friction with establishment-oriented, go-along-to-get-along Republicans.
But DeMint’s departure won’t be too painful if Governor Haley of South Carolina appoints an equally strong advocate of small government to replace him.
Moreover, Senator DeMint no longer is a lone voice for liberty. There are now some very strong defenders of small government in the Senate, including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, and (beginning in January) Ted Cruz. You can get a pretty good idea of which Senators fight for freedom, coincidentally, by looking at the Heritage Action for America vote rating.
So hopefully Senator DeMint won’t be missed too much.
But what about the implications for Heritage?
Josh Barro thinks DeMint’s selection is a mistake because it means Heritage will be less of a think tank and more of “a political pressure organization with a policy research arm.”
But I disagree with Josh’s concern. Think tanks fill various niches in the battle of ideas. Heritage (even when I disagree with the organization) has an unparalleled outreach program to folks on Capitol Hill and it also has a very impressive capacity to bring information to the grassroots.
Those are good features. In other words, think tanks shouldn’t all fit the same mold, featuring wonky guys with thick glasses publishing 50-page papers. Nothing wrong with that, of course, particularly since I’m a bit of a wonk myself. But just as diversity among governments is a good thing, so is diversity among think tanks.
What matters to me is whether DeMint will guide Heritage in the right direction. At times in recent history, it seems Heritage lost sight of its Reaganite roots. The organization, for instance, got some unfavorable publicity for supporting healthcare mandates (for friends of Heritage, this leftist video is very painful to watch). The Heritage Foundation also was far too timid last decade about criticizing Bush’s reckless record of excessive federal spending.
Given DeMint’s principled opposition to statism on Capitol Hill, I suspect he will lead the way in restoring Heritage’s bona fides as a proponent of small government. That’s very good news, especially at a time when congressional Republicans seem to be losing their nerve.
It’s also worth noting that DeMint has some libertarian sympathies, as Nick Gillespie explains for Reason.
All things considered, Senator Jim DeMint seems like a very solid pick for the top job at the Heritage Foundation. Particularly since he presumably will be an effective fundraiser, which is one of the main jobs for the leader of a non-profit organization.
And since this post is about think tanks, let me take this opportunity to say some nice things about my employer. More specifically, I want to congratulate Michael Cannon, one of my colleagues at the Cato Institute.
He was just featured in the New Republic, a left-wing magazine, as the leading opponents of Obamacare. Here’s a bit of what they wrote about him.
Can one very determined libertarian and one very distorted version of history keep millions of people from getting health insurance? We’re about to find out. The determined libertarian is Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute. He was among the most vocal opponents of the Affordable Care Act, going back to the time when it was still a glint in the eyes of Ted Kennedy. The idea of universal coverage is so antithetical to Cannon’s principles that he actually started an “Anti-Universal Coverage Club.” Once the law passed and took on the moniker “Obamacare,” Cannon became a leading advocate for its repeal. And since he understood the law might survive both the courts and the 2012 elections, as it eventually did, he also made the case that states should avoid complicity in its implementation—and, if possible, actively thwart it. He made that case in his writing and speeches, sometimes directly to the officials with responsibility for implementing the law. …And no single individual has done more to make the case for state resistance to Obamacare than Cannon.
Kudos to Michael. You know you’re doing a good job when your enemies are attacking you. Michael’s also done great work on entitlement reform, and you’ll recognize his mug if you watch my videos on Medicare and Medicaid reform.
At the risk of bragging, Cato is filled with people who make a difference. I’ve noted how Cato organized the first attack against Obama’s faux stimulus when others were sitting on their hands. And it was Cato scholars who helped rejuvenate the constitutional case for limited government.
So I’m glad that Heritage is moving in the right direction, and it was great working there for many years, but there shouldn’t be any confusion about the best think tank in Washington.
[…] are delightfully vicious. And DC insiders will be amused by the jab at the Heritage Foundation for concocting the mandate in the first place (to be fair, Heritage has atoned for that sin by becoming one of the leading critics of […]
[…] the battle against Obamacare (as well as the battle against its evil twin, Romneycare), the Cato Institute has been the most dogged, most principled, and most effective fountainhead of ideas and […]
[…] my views on when the monetary system will begin to unravel, whether I hated Republicans, what I thought about Senator Jim DeMint moving over to the Heritage Foundation, the degree to which the media is biased, and if my opinions have changed on any […]
I think he is a man without honor.
When you run for office–for public service–and ask for voter support, you are making a tacit promise to fulfill the duties of your office to the fullest. To leave office early for anything other than family or other public service does a dishonor to the office and to the politician. This is especially true when it is to enrich oneself, be it with money, power or prestige.
Dan,
Unrelated to the post, but I liked seeing you on Stossel this weekend. I also enjoy receiving your blog posts in my inbox. I am graduating UGA this spring with degrees in political science and intl. affairs. I’m proud to have you representing our school!
Hoping he is more aggressive than he was in the senate. Hope he is as passionate for conservativism that he claims to be
wfl, it’s unlikely that DeMint will take Heritage to the place that it needs to go. He’s a hardcore militarist and a tax ideologue. Also, “American exceptionalism requires understanding biblical view”. So it’s claimed of DeMint by OnTheIssues.org, which informs us that DeMint was not being cynical about American exceptionalism. They claim that DeMint believes that “Judeo-Christian conservatism overcomes natural selfishness”. He’s notorious also for wanting his theology promoted in public schools, which just happen to be financed through taxes.
Clearly, DeMint’s Judeo-Christian conservatism explains not only “DeMint’s principled opposition to statism” but also his eagerness to abolish subsidization of defense through robbery. Since militarism is a primary engine of crony capitalism, we can pigeonhole DeMint as a principled enemy of crony capitalism, too.
Right. See http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jim_demint.htm under the heading “Jim DeMint on Principles & Values”.
It’s by the way that Cato’s scholars don’t understand the Constitution even half as well as they like to imagine. Anyone who can think logically when reading Article VII should be able to figure out that its clause could not have stated the law about the “Establishment” of the other six articles unless that clause had acquired authority independent of the means by which it’s alleged that the Constitution did so. No one, however, has demonstrated evidence to support a theory of A7 or its clause having acquired authority in such a manner. So, to invoke A7 or its clause as a basis for believing that the Constitution has been established is to presuppose what is at issue and tantamount to arguing that A7 states the law about how to make itself into law.
Let Cato’s scholars explain why they believe in establishment, and let them discuss the reasons, probably embarrassing to apologists of the Founding Fathers, for there to be in the great Constitution an article that is superfluous whether or not the C. has been established.
First, I’ll take Cato over Heritage any day of the week. I hope DeMint takes Heritage in a more liberty-oriented direction.
Second, Michael Cannon has been doing great work against Obamacare and also for making health care more user-friendly, as contrasted with the big government/big business left-wingers such as the New Republic support. Why can’t health care be like all the other products and services we buy as consumers? With all the innovation in this country just dying to be unleashed, we’d be walking into retail stores to get the health care we want.
You know, I don’t want to rag on Heritage too much, but seriously–they’re just the policy research center for the Republican Party. They’ll do anything for the party. Unlike Cato, it’s highly partisan, and while they have good research, I think that opens up a lot of blind spots. They’re not bold enough on entitlement reform, for instance; I personally think a lot of their “reforms” are just way too weak to actually make any sort of difference.
I’m not sure if DeMint will change any of that. I’m certainly not holding my breath.
I think it is really revealing to think that a possible ‘neo-con” think tank would be probably at the roots of our trouble-nationsl insurance ,etc.
‘