The Rise And Fall Of The Heritage Foundation

Courtesy of the CRISP blog

The new president of the prestigious and mighty Heritage Foundation, former United States Senator Jim DeMint, has ushered in a new era for the conservative think tank that may ultimately render it toothless.  Founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors to provide timely and relevant research supporting conservative public policy choices, the think tank grew to be one the nation’s largest and most prominent policy influencers.  Its stated goal—as found on its website—

“is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Nothing wrong with that.

Over the years, the Heritage Foundation has produced hundreds of research and policy papers that contain many thoughtful—though often disputed—ideas about public policy.  Serious thinkers, among progressives, often rely on their scholarship to broaden the discussion—to get serious opposing views of their own policy preferences.  Remember, it was the Heritage Foundation that floated the idea of mandating Americans to acquire health insurance, although its scholars claim their proposal was quite different than that in the Affordable Care Act.  It was one of the think tanks I encourage my students to utilize during their literature searches.  While I do not agree with many of their policy proposals, I respected their efforts to provide rigorously researched ideas.

However, this latest report from Heritage released this week, The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer, threatens to undo much of the reputation it has gained over the years and brand the organization as partisan to the extreme and more a political outfit than a scholarly institution.  The report warns that the current immigration bill being crafted by the bi-partisan “Gang of Eight” U.S. Senators will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years, arguing that newly legalized immigrants will receive $9.4 trillion in benefits from the government while paying $3.1 trillion in taxes.  Noted Heritage scholar Robert Rector is one of the authors of this soon-to-be discredited pseudo research report.

Interestingly, the loudest outcries against this report are coming from conservatives: from Rep. Paul Ryan who says the report fails to consider the economic benefits that will accrue from immigration reform to former Mississippi Governor and Republican Party stalwart Haley Barbour who labeled the report “a political document.” This is one instance where progressives can just stand on the sidelines and watch Republicans beat up on themselves.  The study is a retread of a similar report released in 2007 that helped to upend efforts to reform immigration policy.  Only this time, the problem has grown more severe and the stakes are higher so many more people are paying attention.

The Heritage Foundation’s influence over public policy reached its zenith during the presidency of Ronald Reagan with the publication in 1981 of a study entitled Mandate for Leadership which became the blueprint for many of the Reagan Administration’s domestic and foreign policy choices.  Its clout continued to grow during the ensuing decades with many of its policy prescriptions shaping welfare reform during the Clinton Administration.  The Heritage Foundation would become the clearinghouse for many of the political appointees during the presidency of George W. Bush.

I was surprised by the choice of Jim DeMint to head the Heritage Foundation.  A leading voice for the Tea Party movement, DeMint was considered to be one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate.  By choosing DeMint to head Heritage, the organization seemed to be sending a clear signal that it intended to be more political going forward.  The release of their immigration report removes all doubt.  Time will tell what damage this shift in direction will have on the organization’s policy influence.

I take no delight in this latest development.  The Heritage Foundation is one example of how ideas can be marketed in the world of political discussion.  It has been a model for others such as the Center for American Progress that brings progressive thinking to the process.  Our organization—the Congressional Research Institute for Social Work and Policy—was conceived to enhance the voices of social work policy researchers and scholars.  We, too, have an agenda.  However, policy is best shaped by serious thinking about ideas, not by propaganda.

Written By Charles E. Lewis, Jr., Ph.D.
President of The Congressional Research Institute for Social Work and Policy

Twitter: @CharlesELewisJr.
Email:    celewisjr@gmail.com

Dr. Charles E. Lewis, Jr. is President of The Congressional Research Institute for Social Work and Policy. He has served as deputy chief of staff and communications director for former Congressman Edolphus “Ed” Towns and was the staff coordinator for the Congressional Social Work Caucus. He was a full-time faculty member at Howard University School of Social Work prior to joining Rep. Towns’ staff and now is an adjunct associate professor. As staff coordinator for the Social Work Caucus, Dr. Lewis helped to plan and to coordinate numerous briefings and events on the Hill and in the 10th Congressional District in Brooklyn, New York.

For more information on CRISP go to www.crispinc.org