The War of Ideas

The Stanford Social Innovation Review has an interesting article about who is winning and who is losing in the war of ideas in American politics.  Although “liberal” foundations out-spent their “conservative” counterparts by a factor of almost 5 to 1, the article asserts that conservative foundations are winning.  Given the funding differential, the article then offers two reasons why conservative foundations are more effective than their liberal counterparts in winning the war of ideas: 1. Conservative foundations make “general operations” grants, which allow grantees to be more responsive to changing circumstances; and 2. Conservative foundations “will only fund you if you toe the ideological line,” a rigidity that keeps potentially wayward factions in line.  In my mind neither reason—nor the evidence provided in support of each—provides a particularly robust explanation of outcomes, and ample counter-evidence could be gathered if one were so inclined.

Rather than analyzing these explanations and challenging the evidence, I’ll offer a third hypothesis, one that can and should be tested.  Conservative foundations are winning the war of ideas because they’re relatively more knowledgeable and practical about market processes than their liberal counterparts.  A testable hypothesis might be: although far from the market ideal, conservative foundations implement a higher degree of market discipline on themselves than do their counterparts on themselves.  For example, of the liberal and conservative foundations listed in the article, which ones quickly discard failed projects (or conversely hold on to underperformers) and which ones quickly adopt or copy successful projects?  On a relative scale, which foundations demand performance measures—not just measures of outputs like op-eds or media appearances but something akin to an ROI for real advancement of social progress?

All that said, the first assumption of the article ought to be examined, too (as the author suggests): Are conservative foundations really winning the war of ideas?  Commentary magazine recently ran an article that provided a good history of philanthropic investment in “conservative” ideas.  Both the Stanford and Commentary articles are a good start to better understanding the current war of ideas landscape and (possibly) what drives outcomes.

Comments

[Joanna]

This argument of who's winning is constantly going on in the policy circles and the blogosphere. Both sides like to be the winner and the underdog, depending on the circumstances. I'm inclined to think conservatives/libertarians are more innovative, fresher, and nimbler in their execution of the idea industry. Also, our philosophy has a stronger foundation that has continued for decades and only proven itself more every year. Liberals/progressives are finding themselves kind of grasping right now since the welfare state is becoming discredited, the "socialism just hasn't been implemented right" argument is all but dead, and they're trying to figure out what to fill in those holes with. Hence George Soros wanting to now funnel $millions into establishing progressive think tanks and policy orgs. Someone needs to come up with some answers for them. It's an interesting delayed reaction. In the high-level policy and philsophy debates they're being obliderated, but the bloated institutions they created or took over(the welfare state and academia, for example) are on a very slow trip to their demise and therefore still feel like (and are) major obstacles to us.

[Ben]

Interesting article today by Knight Ridder stating that, even adjusted for inflation, Gates has given more to health causes through his foundation ($5.4 bn) than Rockefeller gave to all causes over his entire life. Any idea how effective his methods are? They say he makes "shrewd" choices in what he backs and doesn't back, but it's a lot of money being thrown around -- and no mention of much accountability. Sounded to me like a recipe for massive waste. I wonder how his foundation is organized, screens for opportunities, tracks progress, etc...

[Joanna]

Not sure the specifics on how they measure or determine grants, but they have been credited for all but eradicating AIDS in Botswana. The good thing about them is that they can buy a huge supply of drugs to people because the pharm companies have a lower risk of producing that quantity with the Gates Foundation behind the cash as opposed to dealing with the difficulty of shifting political winds and govt bureaucracies. Gates can be faster and more effective putting up the cash and getting aid to people. They are credited with being innovative, but the effectiveness question lingers. They do more tangible work, for sure. Buying drugs or vitamins and getting it to people who need it is easier and more measureable than spreading the Science of Liberty...