Ken Silverstein slices and dices the “liberal” think tank called the Center for American Progress, in The Baffler.
Silverstein documents the ties between corporations and CAP. He also shows that its policies reflect those of the Obama administration.
To understand just how Thomas Friedman, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Gail Collins have been repurposed as purveyors of bold new ideas, it helps to see how the world of liberal think tanks has been upended, ever so gently, by a steady onrush of corporate funding—and corporate-friendly policy agendas. Think tanks have always reflected relatively narrow elite opinion and were never entirely impartial, but the earliest were modeled on academic institutions. Brookings, the first, began in 1916 (as the Institute for Government Research) and subsequently billed its mission as “the fact-based study of national public policy issues.” During the Great Depression, its scholars took sides both for and against the New Deal. The Council on Foreign Relations began in New York five years after Brookings and, as author Peter Grose later wrote, sought to “guide the statecraft of policymakers” with in-depth reports prepared by “groups of knowledgeable specialists of differing ideological inclinations.”
An emerging, more aggressive perspective was prompted by the specter of economic stagflation and the twin political crises of the early 1970s, Vietnam and Watergate. In 1974 and 1975, top corporate officials convened annually under the auspices of still another ideas consortium called the Conference Board—but this time out, they didn’t feel quite so dispassionate about the policy-debate scene. Feeling pressured by then-powerful labor unions and the demands of what they saw as an ungrateful citizenry, the assembled CEOs feared a popular revolt might be imminent. “We have been hoist with our own petard,” one executive said at one conclave. “We have raised expectations that we can’t deliver on.” Another executive complained, “One man, one vote has undermined the power of business in all capitalist countries since World War II.”
In order to recapture politicians, intellectuals, and the media, corporations increased their Washington lobbying efforts and jacked up campaign contributions as well. Just as important, corporations shoveled cash into existing think tanks and established dozens of new ones. The Heritage Foundation began in 1973, and within a decade its annual budget topped $12 million. The American Enterprise Institute, which began life as a fairly nondescript business advocacy group, became more politically emboldened and saw its budget triple between 1975 and 1985. New conservative think tanks founded in the post-Watergate period included the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Over time, corporations also provided major support for think tanks aligned with Democrats, especially moderate ones. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) began in 1989 and received millions of dollars from sources such as the Tobacco Institute, Occidental Petroleum, and various Wall Street firms.
The article doesn’t say much about CAP’s education initiatives. Too bad, because it has been a reliable mouthpiece for corporate reform. Peter Greene roasted CAP in “The Progressive” for supporting charter schools, high-stakes testing, and every other right wing idea.
Before readers point it out, please note that the founder of CAP was John Podesta, now managing Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
I think there is only one genuine liberal think tank in D.C., at least where education is concerned, and that is the Economic Policy Institute.

Absolutely agree Diane, From Reich to Baker and Bernstein every truly progressive economist excluding Stieglitz seems to have started at EPI. Seldom do we see them get the airtime that the corporate talking heads get.
LikeLike
To my knowledge, EPI is the only think tank in DC that does NOT receive Gates funding.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane for posting this article. I get caught in the swirl of foundation pronouncements. It is nice to have such a clear and succinct picture of them.
LikeLike
All these phony-baloney “think” tanks (think corporate propaganda mills) like to brag how they are nonpartisan. Ha, ha, ha, funny how all the GOP pols seem to drift into Cato, AEI or Heritage, for example. They may be nonpartisan and that’s doubtful but they are certainly very ideological (paid to shill for the oligarchs) or spew a very specific economic point of view skewed in favor of the economic royalists at the expense of the 99%. The faux liberal think tanks are no better. These “think” tanks try to present themselves as being dispassionate and objective which is a joke; as if they were a university or some true research institute which they are not. They have a specific point of view that has been funded by the corporate elite, nothing objective about that.
LikeLike
So-called education reform, unfortunately, truly is bi-partisan. Supported by both legacy political parties, it represents a clear ruling class consensus about education – it’s purposes and practice, governance and labor relations – based on privatization and corporate control. In public, this is marketed as “choice.” In practice, it plays out as social engineering, rent seeking, de-professionalization, union busting (aided by collaborationist union mis-leadership) and looting.
LikeLike
The alliance of think tanks, corporations and Citizens United have contributed to income inequality and the creation of our oligarchy. As for “progressive” think tanks’ contribution, how “progressive” is a policy when it supports many of the same ideas as conservatives, and it leaves the American worker in the dust?
LikeLike
Corporations and foundations and think tanks, oh my!… I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, Toto. I don’t think we’re in a democratic society anymore, kids. Someone throw some water on the banksters and see if they melt.
LikeLike
A Krugman column named Stephen Moore (chief economist at the libertarian Heritage Foundation) as one of the “charlatans and cranks” who have influenced policymakers at all levels to enact low-tax, supply-side economic policies—with ruinous effects, according to Krugman. The huge 2013 tax cuts in Kansas were only the latest examples, he wrote, citing unfavorable economic and fiscal news. Sometimes Krugman does get it right.
Moore was recently on NPR complaining that the Media are unfair to Trump. Typical Moore BS garbage.
LikeLike
One of my favorite articles re: too many STEM graduates from the Economic Policy Institute:
http://www.epi.org/publication/americas-genius-glut/
LikeLike
That is bad, horrific, enough but now they are aiming at our colleges and universities. No longer basic science but “science” funded by these entities. Guess how scholarly that “research” is when getting money for research is contingent upon funding by corporations.
That is only one example.
the academic entity applauded by the world which sent the best students from around the world to be educated here is now denigrated by the “harpies of the shore who pluck the eagle of the sea”
God bless America. We need some divine inspiration and backbone to fight against the kind of mind set which destroys, not builds human progress.
LikeLike
I have tripped upon a new “inventory” of think tanks, not just in the US but worldwide.
This inventory is being transformed into a rating system for think tanks The methodology is still in the works, but the link I have included has a brief history of the formation of think tanks, and some interesting observations about why fewer are being inaugurated now after a period of rapid grwoth in the 1960s and 1970s.
The author of this report attributes a decline in number of new think tanks to a number of factors. Of these, I think several are of particular relevance to the US. One is the number of billionaire-funded personal foundations capable of funding their preferred projects and less interested in “policy” ideas than in asserting a “mission, adopting “a theory of action,” and funding those willing to act…or just getting a tax break for pet projects.
Another is the proliferation of for-profit spin factories (politely called consulting firms) with the resources and savvy to launch for-hire advocacy campaigns. Some of these spin factories function as an arm of a think tank.
In any case, this report says that in 2015, there were 1,835 thank tanks in the US. That number represents about 28% of those included in this relatively new global roster and rating system: “2015 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report.”
Most of those in the US are in Washington DC (397), followed by Massachusetts (177) California (166), New York (144) with at least three in almost every state.
The rating system is a work in progress, but the classifications of think tanks and criteria for rating them also shows the variety of purposes and kinds of influence they may have, and how it can be gained. (This discussion begins on page 26).
The most highly rated think tank, named best in the world and in the year 2015, was the Brookings Institute. This status may change given the recent policy changes that allow for this reputation to be transformed into a brand and for a minimum fee of $2 million.
Perhaps of greater interest for this post is the status of the Center for American Progress. It is mentioned 18 times and it received some high ratings of particular interest–several for the publicity machine it operates.
CAP received these “Special Achievement” ratings.
Number 1 for Best Advocacy Campaign (Table 27)
Number 1 for Best Use of Social Networks (Table 40).
CAP placed in the top ten in several other categories:
Number 7 Best Use of Print or Electronic Media (Table 44),
Number 10 for Think Tanks with the Best Use of the Internet (Table 43).
These ratings point to the growing importance of media campaigns in giving visibility to the issues and positions of think tanks. Especially in a global communications environment, think tanks are less about thinking than pushing belief systems in the hope of shaping poicies. Arguably, billionaire foundations such as that of Bill and Melinda Gates see no need for a think tank. Access to any policy environment can be purchased, including for example, the Common Core.
This Index Report includes an international group of think tanks with a focus on education.
The following US thank tanks received the highest ratings relative to those in other nations:
1. Urban Institute, 2. Brookings Institution, 3. Cato Institute, 5. RAND Corporation, 6. Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR), 9. Center for Education Policy, SRI International, 10. Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice (IREPP), 11. Mathmatica Policy Research (MPR), 13. Education Policy and Data Center (EPDC), 20. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE, and 23. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI).
Source: McGann, James G., “2015 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report” (2016). TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports. Paper 10. http://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/10
LikeLike
This is what’s happened to the field of education. Gates money has created a layer of education think tanks that arrogate to themselves the leadership of our field. Teachers have been subordinated and shut out. We need to start soaking the rich so they cannot do so much mischief.
LikeLike