Once in office, elected officials feel the push and pull of constituencies that supported them, those that opposed them, and those that could be gained or lost. And that means – from the start – laying down markers defining what good policy … and bad policy … looks like.
Political parties are focused on one clear goal: getting their candidates elected. It’s not bad at all that they rally around their nominee, regardless of specific ideas, because their role is to mobilize voters and secure victories at the ballot box. Think tanks like ITR Foundation, on the other hand, have a fundamentally different role. They advocate for long-term policy changes, promoting ideas that align with their philosophies regardless of which officials may be for or against them. Our friend, Chris Braunlich, offered an excellent commentary on these dynamics for the Thomas Jefferson Institute, a freedom-minded think tank in Virginia. We are sharing an excerpt of that piece below, with the author’s permission.
It’s all too easy to conflate the roles of political parties with those of public policy “think tanks.” Both gravitate around policy ideas falling along conservative or progressive lines, and their supporters tend to divide along those same lines, as well. Advocacy of progressive ideas is usually driven by Democratic elected officials, while those backing conservative solutions tend to be Republicans.
But there are differences between political parties and think tanks, especially during election season.
Once nominations are over, political parties support their candidates regardless of the ideas espoused by those candidates. Public policy organizations support good ideas, regardless of what candidate advocates them.
Political parties put their focus on getting supporters to vote by the first Tuesday in November. Policy organizations try to persuade the public in order to have a lasting impact on public policy. They play the long game, working to shift public opinion so ideas become acceptably within the Overton window of opportunity.
Unfortunately, candidates and their political parties are often focused on slapping together platforms that give away candy, ice cream and unicorns in the pursuit of votes. But policy organizations are in the business of putting together coherent ideas that work and align with their philosophy of governing.
Finally, political parties expect supporters to “circle the wagons,” whatever a candidate’s deficiencies. Perhaps that’s understandable, given the binary nature of Election Day.
But what happens if a bad idea takes hold? Sometimes that means calling out wrong ideas, even if they’re coming from a candidate on your side of the electoral divide.
There is a tendency on the part of activists to believe that all they need to do is elect “their guy” and all will be well. It rarely is and it doesn’t end there. Once in office, elected officials feel the push and pull of constituencies that supported them, those that opposed them, and those that could be gained or lost. That often results in bad policies or, more likely from friends, ineffective policies.
And that means – from the start – laying down markers defining what good policy … and bad policy … looks like.
An America that grows and prospers happens when the right people do the right things. Campaigns need to elect the right people. Policy think tanks need to focus on defining and creating a climate that will sustain the right things.
Chris Braunlich is Senior Advisor and former President of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.
Print a PDF