3/10/2003 11:31:00 AM
by The MinuteMan
The Economist, Indirectly, On Media Bias
A cool link I meant to post weeks ago
...This does not explain why right-wing think-tanks are so much more vibrant than left-wing ones. Money is the reason most often cited by liberals. The right certainly has its wealthy supporters, notably Richard Mellon Scaife, a reclusive billionaire based in Pittsburgh; Joseph Coors, a Colorado brewer; and the Koch family, a business dynasty from Wichita, Kansas. But these are dwarfed by liberal organisations such as the Ford Foundation. And the left can call on the resources of America's giant universities, which, as every right-wing think-tanker moans, are stuffed with neo-socialists.
The right's real advantage lies in commitment and organisation. Many of the conservative think-tankers grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, when conventional wisdom held that government spending would solve most problems. They recruited a small army of passionate maverick dissenters, notably academics who felt marginalised at those left-leaning universities. Even now, when they are rich and powerful, there is something endearingly rabid and unhygienic about many think-tankers.
UPDATE: Jeff Hauser
sees my "Economist", and raises me an "Atlantic Monthly
". And how could a Brit magazine fully appreciate the futility and political non-directedness of the so-called liberal foundations and universities, he doesn't ask, but might be thinking?
Well, sometimes a foreign observer can bring detachment, objectivity, and a fresh viewpoint - it worked for de Tocqueville! But on the broader question of the futility and ineffectiveness of liberal organizations, I have no comment.
Oh, this ought-to-be-patented "Strawmanufacturer
" is working great! NO, Hauser didn't say those thing, give the guy some credit.