Who Bought off the Think Tanks? Corporations Eager to Do Business with China Have Cozied Up to Conservative Think Tanks, Raising Concerns about Their Influence Level on Foreign-Policy Analysis. (Nation: Policy Change)

By Rust, Michael | Insight on the News, November 19, 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Who Bought off the Think Tanks? Corporations Eager to Do Business with China Have Cozied Up to Conservative Think Tanks, Raising Concerns about Their Influence Level on Foreign-Policy Analysis. (Nation: Policy Change)


Rust, Michael, Insight on the News


Osama bin Laden dipped into his huge fortune to recruit, train and transport suicide bombers into the heart of American power. Maybe he should just have used the money to start a Washington think tank instead.

Think tanks are, of course, those nonprofit organizations that allow scholars, writers and polemicists a platform from which to pontificate, and they have been looking far and wide for funding. Revolutionary developments in media during the last two decades -- primarily the growth of the Internet and cable television -- have given all sorts of think-tank thinkers wide platforms from which to preach to believers and unbelievers alike.

Riding high on a bull market -- and started by the federal government's pursuit of Microsoft for antitrust violations --many in the Internet industry of the late 1990s sought to influence policy by funding think tanks. In 1999 the New York Times ran a front-page account of how Microsoft had bankrolled the Independent Institute, a California-based libertarian think tank, to run full-page ads supporting Microsoft's claim of innocence in the face of the antitrust charges.

The ads took the form of a letter signed by 240 academics and purported to be a scholarly view of why the government had been excessive in its claims of wrongdoing against Microsoft. According to the Times, Microsoft not only paid for the ads but was the largest single donor to the Independent Institute.

The burst of the Internet bubble brought an end to the attention paid to this sort of thing. But questions remain about the way donors influence think tanks and how this influence plays out in public-policy discussions.

Take for instance the People's Republic of China, which three decades ago was the darkest of bete noires for the American right. This began to change with President Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972. Then, even during the last years of dictator Mao Tse-tung's life, some in the GOP began to look at mainland China as a potentially useful partner in the struggle against the Soviet Union. Such notions, right-wing intellectuals now admit, occasionally were whispered in conservative think tanks.

Decades have passed and the Cold War has ended. The cadre in Beijing still sing "The East is Red," but conservative think tanks have become much more receptive to the concept of doing business with China. "It's significant throughout Washington," says a resident fellow at a conservative Washington think tank who asks to remain anonymous. "Trade and corporate money have influenced feelings regarding China."

In an interview earlier this year, Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner cited concern about Beijing's human-rights and military policies but said that continuing to do business with China was justified. That attitude is apparent in this year's Index of Economic Freedom, an annual monograph produced by Heritage. China is placed in the category "mostly unfree" and the ranking of 3.55 is lower than it was in 1995. But in the text for the entry on China, the index points out that "though often criticized for its human-rights abuses and authoritarian political system, the People's Republic of China is vastly more open and advanced economically than it was two decades ago."

It's difficult to argue against this, and many believe that those who do so are, in essence, looking for a fight.

Conservative journalist Jon Basil Utley, a fellow at the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, has argued that conservatives vastly exaggerate China's military power. For some, the influence of businesses and corporations eager to do business with Beijing is the dominant factor in think-tank attitudes toward China. David Callahan, a think-tank veteran and left-leaning author, said in 1999 that think tanks had become a third option to lobbying and financing political campaigns for wealthy contributors seeking to affect policy. "The third river of private money flowing into politics is less well-known, but nearly as wide and deep as the other two," he wrote in the Washington Monthly.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Who Bought off the Think Tanks? Corporations Eager to Do Business with China Have Cozied Up to Conservative Think Tanks, Raising Concerns about Their Influence Level on Foreign-Policy Analysis. (Nation: Policy Change)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.