Competition of Ideas

I love how Weidenbaum begins his book, The Competition of Ideas.  “No think tank is quite as influential as it claims to be… Not every think tank researcher is brilliant or a person of great experience and judgment.”  Dissent and argument does not disappear with more education; it becomes more ferocious.  Weidenbaum points out the flaws in think tanks that may be unobservable from the outside.  There is rarely complete agreement between think tanks or between the staff of a particular think tank.  According to Weidenbaum, this conflict raises the level of debate nationally and is a force for good.  However, there is still a need to define the role of think tanks and there are many issues to consider when doing so.

 
The think tank market isn’t just a competition between each other, but also a competition for the attention of their main clients.  The market for information and ideas is aggressive.  On more than one occasion, intellectual confrontations have turned into physical ones.  In the previous blog, I show how presidents have employed members of think tanks for their own administrations.  As always, incoming presidents tend to rely on individuals that support their own values and ideas, which discourage change and stifles debate.  Both Reagan and Bush Sr. have hired from conservative based think tanks, while Clinton and Obama have hired from liberal think tanks. 

Weidenbaum discusses this problem in a different manor.  Think tanks are charged with helping the public welfare.  This charge is not assisted by “an endless series of sharp and partisan thrusts.”  However, Weidenbaum does an excellent job at offering solutions when he presents problems, probably a habit from devising policy.  While I don’t see think tanks working together to offer truly bi-partisan research, he offers this as a possible way to increase the quality of national debate.  It’s a competitive market and sharing resources between organizations seems idealistic.  Maybe the uniqueness of the information market offers incentives for cooperation that I am ignorant of.  Weidenbaum shows his suggestion is a realistic possibility.

Simply, all we need to do is cooperate and stop focusing on hot topic research.  Maybe that’s not so simple.  Weidenbaum does a great job at assessing the world of think tanks and fishing out their problems.  It’s hard to argue against his methodical analysis and logical process.  I agree that his solutions would fix the problems currently afflicting think tanks.  However, I have a hard time believing that think tanks can be coerced into working together.  Also, in a market where they must compete for the attention of their clients, hot topics and buzz words attract money.  James McGann pointed out that after 9/11 think tanks began a heavy research focus on defense and security.  The conversation that started was necessary and helpful in alleviating issues in U.S. defense.  However, it demonstrates that think tanks will follow the money.  Unless Weidenbaum can solve these issues, I don’t see his solutions as being viable.