Magazine article Insight on the News

Funding Subversion of National Security

Magazine article Insight on the News

Funding Subversion of National Security

Article excerpt

How huge foundations now are lavishing money to gut U.S. national interests from leading defense and security bodies, outspending sounder national-security programs 10-to-1.

Traditional national-security groups in academia, government and public policy are disappearing. And that, observers say, presents an alarming trend for the 21st century. "Most national-security-minded groups simply aren't there anymore," says John Lenczowski, director of the Institute of World Politics, perhaps the only graduate school in the United States devoted to teaching traditional statecraft. "The veterans groups don't serve their old purpose at all anymore; they're in it for government benefits. And when it comes to academic institutions, you've got mostly a kind of internationalist crowd. Most of the schools of international affairs focus on internationalism, rather than the American national interest."

Meanwhile, thanks to the globalist-collectivist bias of the leading universities, relatively few younger people are equipped to replace the Reagan-era thinkers and doers who won the Cold War. The dominant force of the next generation is intellectually rooted in a fundamental distrust of the United States and of U.S. might and mission during the Cold War and sees the United States as even less to be trusted as the world's sole superpower. This worldview deliberately tends to diminish U.S. influence by promoting more numerous and more powerful international organizations and courts, nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, and treaties that would constrain the United States while doing little, in practical terms, to restrain regimes hostile to America and to freedom. This view also treats U.S. economic, diplomatic and even military resources as tools with which to advance political, social and cultural agendas ranging from gun-control and the environment to gender- and sex-related causes.

It means that this century's new diplomats, intelligence analysts, military planners, congressional staffers and strategic thinkers will come mostly with a worldview that minimizes U.S. national interests. Their work will be reinforced -- or even initiated and shaped -- by think tanks, journalists and NGOs financed by the same multibillion-dollar pool.

With the exception of a hardy handful of small foundations, the end of the Cold War saw funding all but evaporate for traditional organizations and programs focused on national-security policy. But the big foundations that bankrolled academics and activists professionally opposed to U.S. Cold War leadership regrouped, even going on retreats and conducting studies to "examine" their new purpose and to redefine the ideas of defense and security. In most cases, according to a Center for Security Policy study of the 70 largest foundations in the defense and security field, the grantors changed their program names. They stripped out "national" from security and replaced it with global, environmental or collectivist themes.

Less than a decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, the new globalist strain is outspending traditional national-security programming by more than 10-to-1, according to the study. The combined endowments of foundations funding global-collectivist security programs exceed $42 billion, while foundations devoted to more traditional national-security and defense policies hold a comparatively tiny $4 billion in assets -- one year's worth of interest income of their collectivist counterparts.

Spending from those endowments on defense and security education, training and public policy totals about $200 million annually -- not including peripheral issues such as democratic transitions and postconflict aid, or the $100 million that CNN mogul Ted Turner gives annually to U.N. programs. Traditional national-security education and policy receives only about $23 million a year. "This is a 10-to-1 endowment advantage and a 7-to-1 funding advantage for the left," according to the study. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.