Think tanks: independent idea generators or policy driven public relations propagators?

Just how close-minded are think tanks? “Universities without students” have turned into lobby markets without scruples. Think tanks are a powerful voice in the political scene, particularly in the legislative branch. They can push a donor’s specific agendas without retribution (although individuals working within a think tank can lose their jobs if they offend a donor). Similar to the decades of pressure that women have faced in the workplace, staying silent simply due to this pressure of power and the fear of losing their jobs, think tankers seem to be up against a similar challenge. In a sense, these atmospheres create a type of reverse whistle-blowing: the inability to both perform and secure one’s job while retaining freedom of speech.

Although accusations have been denied, a recent case of the negative consequences of exercising one’s First Amendment rights involved the leftist think tank New America. Funded largely by Google, New America had undergone a project called Open Markets that explored monopolies and ways to fight against them. The program director openly criticized Google as being monopolistic and soon after, the president of New America closed the Open Markets project down. Both Google and New America attest that the comments had nothing to do with the closing. Funding has devolved from grants, foundations, and discrete millionaires to wealthy business people, more commonly termed now as philanthro-capitalists.

Funding is a matter of survival but think tanks also enjoy the benefits of a tax-exempt status. Corporations share a similar advantage by being able to write off their donations as charitable contributions. Philanthro-capitalists often have specific interests and want to assure that their money is going toward that interest: targeted giving. According to documents containing thousands of internal memos and confidential correspondence obtained by the New York Times and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, the Brookings Institute and mega-corporations like JPMorgan Chase, K.K.R., the global investment firm, Microsoft, and Hitachi, “show that financial support often came with assurances from Brookings that it would provide ‘donation benefits,’ including setting up events featuring corporate executives with government officials.” Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated happenstance.

Corporative funding of think tanks is an effective way to flip money: donate a few million and reap billions through passed legislation that directly benefit private interests. Think tanks have the ability of selling to donors the fact that they have access to politicians and therefore influence policy. Many have attempted to change the appearance of being bought off by becoming more transparent and refusing to accept anonymous contributions. Transparency is the best way to combat the power between corporations and political blocs. Although the public is well aware that lobbyists influence politics, scholars in think tanks must maintain their credibility as being independent intermediaries of policy.

Closing Congress?

Today's opposition in Congress is currently halting many events in the United States government. The United States was originally not so savage when it came to political parties and their affect on legislation and the President. Today, party politics are the only politics. With a great divide such as this, it is rare that any important legislation ever passed. Today, Republicans and Democrats are divided on the military budget. Both agreed that it should be increased, but Republicans then want the spending to stop; whereas the Democrats want the budgets for other agencies to be increased as well. There is currently Republican infighting about the bill, which may lead to a shutdown on Friday.

The bipolarity of Congress mentioned in Chapter seven of Friends and Foes brought to mind a current issue in Congress: the question of an impending government shutdown. The book mentions that, “one motivated member of Congress can delay vital legislation, slash needed funding, or paralyze executive officials with a barrage of letters, requests, hearings, and reporting requirements.” This week in Washington D.C., Senator Dick Durbin, a democrat, said that unless the “Dreamers” issue was resolved, he planned to oppose the bill that would allow the government to stay open. Yet, another democratic senator said that spending bills should come first, despite the fact that the “Dreamers” issue is “important to all of us,” according to Reuters.

Here lies the importance of Congressional cooperation with the executive power. Will President Trump bend to the will of the Democrats and enable the “Dreamers” to stay in America? Or, will President Trump be willing to allow an entire government shutdown within his first year in office? The President can choose between two campaign promises: he can increase the military budget, or he can allow thousands of undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States.  
Article Referenced: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-shutdown/democrats-flex-muscles-as-congress-confronts-a-government-shutdown-idUSKBN1DZ340

Should the President care?

While doing the reading for this week, based on public opinion and the media, I wondered to myself who actually cares about the public’s opinion? Does our current President care when an election is on the line? At the end or beginning of a term, does it matter if the public likes what you are doing as the leader of the free world? Surveys were taken in the reading about the approval rating of the President by the average Americans. We see on television shows and movies when the President’s approval rating is down. It seems like a devastating blow for an administration. However, if this is so devastating to an administration, what exactly are the consequences? They may affect re-election, the respect of other nations, and the legislative branch.

Assuming that the President takes his position seriously as a representative of the people, their approval rating should matter. Does it? How has our approval rating of President Trump affected his policies? Currently, President Trump has an approval rating of only 37.9%. If the President is really a representative of the people, should we not have more of an input in his actions? Apparently, this is the reason for a House of Representatives. When an executive leader does not care, the people must check him through the legislative branch.

The media will tear the administration to pieces if the people are displeased. The media is dispersed to other nations; the other nations form their opinions from the media. After viewing President Trump’s tweets, many nations lost respect for him. Other leaders have ostracized him from certain meetings because of his tweets. President Trump must be taught about the conveyor belt that is the media.

Ultimately, does Donald Trump have a chance at re-election with public opinion the way it is now? When President Trump was inaugurated, his approval rating was at 45.5%. Today, it is 7.6 points lower. It is because of this that I believe that what the President does influences public opinion more than public opinion influences the President’s actions.

Approval ratings from: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Last policy standing: Obama era ECR Initiative stays alive

As the Trump administration continues to dismantle Obama’s policies, the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECR Initiative) appears to be the odd one out. This initiative was designed to move less sensitive items that no longer needed to be controlled under the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to the Commerce Control List (CCL). The ECR Initiative had two separate goals: boost the economy with more flexible licensing authorizations and increase the number of enforcement officials to safeguard against attempts to acquire defense technologies. However, are we sacrificing our national security for domestic economic improvement?

The 2014 executive order called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) created an online system to facilitate trade. The U.S. Census Bureau's recent Final Rule amendment has implemented a system for tracking numbers; both expedite the process of business shipping and lessen the reporting of importers and exporters, making the process more efficient. The Senate’s confirmation of Mira Ricardel as Undersecretary of Commerce for Export Administration has been another strong indicator of further deregulation; she has been strongly supported by the National Shooting and Sports Foundation. Ricardel has an extensive background in defense and national security as well as international business development.

One controversial step recently made by the president was the deregulation of small arms trade that would shift weapons like assault rifles and handguns from the State Department USML to the Commerce Department CCL. Considering the fact that much of the weapon technology is considered old and easily replicated, some even using 3D printers, Commerce officials see no reason not to use this particular deregulation initiative to reduce the trade deficit. Critics are skeptical, given the continuous incidences of terror attacks in Europe, border insecurities abroad, and overall arms accessibility to Islamist militant groups. 


The Washington Post reports that the Commerce Department minimally controls lethal weapons sales, but is inherently more business-oriented, lacking expertise in foreign policy and national security considerations. “Its licensing process is more dependent on companies volunteering information, creating greater risk of the weapons going to brokers who can speed them to the black market.” USML federal regulations that restrict arms sales to foreign government on the basis of human rights and terrorism concerns often do not apply to the CCL. As domestic gun control continues to sit on the back burner, international arms sales regulations have become increasingly lax. These policies may increase our national security risks, however the likelihood for a domestic attack could be just as high.