Conservative Think Tank - Seeks Comments, Founders, Writers

I'm exploring a startup entrepreneurial, free-enterprise, Judeo-Christian advocacy group, a think tank of, by and for non-elites.

If you have either a little time or a little money (or both) that you can dedicate to a strictly right-wing think tank, you may be interested.

Some are no doubt familiar with my focus on NGOs (non-governmental organizations), the most infamous of which being the Soros network. While many are leftist, there are also those that purport to be right-wing, though most often they are heavily influenced by big business and academia - and virtually not at all by real-world small business viewpoints.

I'm developing a model for countering the influences of NGOs that, among other things, hurt small business, which negatively impacts families and local economies.

It struck me that small business offered a more manageable member base than the general public and also closely aligns with principles of the rule of law and economic liberty. By being by, for and of small business pure academia is avoided.

Interested parties, constructive comments are sought at this time.

So far in the exploratory phase, this is a high level of the vision (see first post):

You are going to have to be prepared to dump all the PC stuff the mainstream Conservatives are saddled with.

...

You up to that Peter?

...

otherwise

what’s the point...just more losing strategy

You've wacked the nail on the head... precisely.

That is the point.

Now, I've remembered some "basics" about gettin' things done; this is not nearly as bad as it might at first appear.

"You're crazy Pieter". No way, it's possible.

Easy: minority conservatives. Remember them ? What we're for is the truth - free enterprise is colorblind.

You don't have to make relationships with every single person in town. You just need to start making relationships, one at a time. Those people become the leaders in their town. Think about it - every city and town across the whole nation - has small businesses and small business owners, and more than a few will agree with the worldview of basic Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. They do not like lazy people mooching their tax dollars from the government, or unnecessary regulation shakedowns, or corruption, or crime, or sending tax dollars overseas to foment revolution, or one-world government, or high property taxes, or not being able to defend their shops and stores, etc.

A big opponent will be unions, as well as the radical left. Big time.

But we're a think tank. Our journal of white papers will be sold by subscription - to those who want to read it. Our papers will be written in a scholarly manner, not in a vulgar manner. They need to be researched so they present data, facts, analysis and perhaps hypotheses. We're seeking to convince intellectuals with them. As far as marketing campaigns or symposiums, marketing is not developed to turn people off, but to convince them to agree. I envision seminars or symposiums, but they will be business get togethers where you have to pay a few bucks to get in. I frankly see no issues there. People listen to the speakers, clap at the end and then discuss. I can think of dozens of ways to go with that in terms of gaining interest and generating revenue while we're at it.

Other groups that agree with our viewpoint or mission may have relationships with us. Well, if we find some, and they can use policy and strategy consulting or offer some service to us - great. They may be doing more active advocacy, like say organizing rallies. They might see confrontations, but a think tank is "thinky-work", we won't.

Perhaps you're concerned about having a website shut down, or getting sued over it ? The public site is only going to have the "convincing" marketing (the journal in it's entireity would be pay-only). Take the idea of welfare "victimhood". The argument there is made that welfare is actually hurting it's recipients, as well as the rest of society, and our papers lay out the case for helping everyone. We would not be saying anything nasty about the recipients, but the government and it's backroom influencers that foist addiction to counter-productive behavior. And most every small business (insert researched percentages here) pays for that with higher taxes. That gets passed on to consumers. And high prices hurt people more the poorer they are. Good business is good for everyone. Efficient and effective government is good for everyone - and by definition (since government's only revenue source is a burden on everyone either directly or through higher prices) that means the smallest government that can deliver what it needs to. (By government I mean government and it's law book).

Perhaps it's a bucket of ice cold water in the face, but it's well-written, matter-of-fact analytical tone.

Perhaps you're thinking of the possibility of watered-down principles showing up in the white papers ? I have some good starter ideas on selecting an editorial committee and thorough review process for papers to be accepted for publishing. If some contributors can't seem to get papers accepted by the committe they get dropped. Ownership will be only staunch supporters of pure, radical small business free-market principles. Large corps, politicians - and other potentially conflicted supporters - would only be "subscription-only" members and pay a nominal subscription fee. This and other restrictions will prevent any conflicted interests from having any influence on the organization.

This is a very high-level effort, very long-term, with a very broad scope of effect. It starts out having no influence on anything. It gets built into a well-known and respected brand that 1/3 the population says yuck to but another 1/3 loves. My vision is investigative research second to none in terms of subject matter, accuracy, truth and integrity which will eventually turn the group into the premier source for policy analysis and advocacy relating to free enterprise. Long term this will effect hearts and minds in business, schools, universities, churches and other segments of society (of course, some of the group's white papers will deal with bringing about such effects). The organization is not so much a solution, but a solution to generating and then disseminating solutions. I know New Jersey has a lot of people who would love to see the economy spruce up - it is in the cr@pper. Many people would like to get something going and they're willing to listen - especially those whose income would double or more (back to where it was) if things perked up. Many politicians who may not have the stomach for conservatism would have some big ears open if things could improve on their watch. If things work, suddenly everybody agrees with them. The whole point of this group is to explain the arithmetic of why most of our wacky liberal laws are working directly against us economically and need to be completely gone, not just moderated.

Ok, here we go.

The idea I'm discussing is not a political action committee - it will not target any specific election or candidate (or politician) for support or opposition. If it supported or opposed in that way it would have to be organized as a PAC and abide by all applicable regulation.

The organization also could not lobby (approach specific members of Congress and urge that they vote yes or no on specific legislation or urge the public or our membership to support or oppose specific legislation), or it would have to operate as a registered lobbying firm, which is entirely different from a think tank.

A think tank undboubtedly can have more effect than lobbying in the long run, since it is not focused on particular legislation but instead becomes a very influential thought leader in society. An example of a think tank is The American Security Council at the following link:

https://www.ascfusa.org/memberships/join_ascf

This is the text from that Join page that tells what they are all about:

"The American Security Council Foundation is an organization whose sole purpose is to educate and inform Americans and our political leadership about the global challenges to the national security, economic security and moral leadership of the United States. To this end, the ASCF sponsors research, holds conferences, and publishes books, monographs and articles. Distinguished scholars, policy makers, lawmakers and citizens participate in these activities. The American Security Council Foundation has had a profound impact on the history of the United States and its global leadership role. In fact, it is difficult to think of an important foreign policy or national security program since World War II where the Foundation did not have a prominent role. We depend on the support of individuals across the nation to achieve these goals.

As a member of the American Security Council Foundation, you will join thousands of like-minded individuals across the United States who share in the common belief that "Peace Through Strength" should be a leading principle in American foreign policy."

Here's their wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Security_Council_Foundation

You can see from their history in that article that they do indeed influence policy and they are an expert resource that is made use of by thought leaders in their field.

They did not help elect Reagan, but his administration used them as an important source for expert advice. The organization, however, only seeks to "educate and inform Americans and our political leadership". Every President and Congressman seeks expert advice in order to understand issues and potential solutions; the experts do all the "figuring" and convey this through the polician's legislative aides. The politician then has their political advisors do some political calculus to figure out what they actually want to adopt as their own position. So the expert advice that's available kind of defines all the possibilities for what can come out of a legislature or Congress. The politician often only knows their talking points, with very little detail; they just select a viewpoint option provided to them by experts. This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public.

A think tank as I am describing would be working on a long-term basis that continues on through all politicians as they come and go. It would just keep on, in this case:

a) pointing out other policy-making organizations or specific policies that are contrary to small business and free enterprise (especially if they try to stay out of the public eye)
b) researching and publishing policy papers providing excellent solutions for an improved small business environment
c) holding conferences and otherwise promoting policy that fosters small business

With this sort of mission, specific issues can change over time and vary by region. Healthcare is big now, as is atrocious government spending on bailouts, social programs, bureacracy, excessive regulation, dysfunctional families, socialism, unions, law and order (self defense); there are tons of potential issues that would be prioritized based on what was hurting business most in which region. Inner cities may have crime problems or corruption problems, while suburbs may have property tax problems. Most areas are affected by education problems, which lowers the quality of the workforce thereby decreasing labor efficiency.

Take inner city crime: research papers could be written about self-defense as a way of reducing crime, and creative ways to reduce drug addiction and therefore reduce the number of customers and the demand for drugs. This will lower street prices and make it more competitive, but after a period of perhaps more violence, with the total market permanently smaller, some sellers would drop out of the market. Alternative opportunities for sellers could be explored in the research. As a city "cleans up", legitimate business improves dramatically, resulting in higher per capita incomes. If the right businesses can provide the right jobs at the right times, the rebirth can be improved even more. Business and investing education for inner city youths is also a great idea, and local Churches are key partners in these efforts as well. We would want to build our membership rolls by approaching leaders and citizens in the community (without respect to specific elections or legislation) and would offer student memberships as well. The think tank is laying out position papers, research, ideas, collaboration, etc., to partners in the community.

As you can see, long term the overall picture starts improving dramatically on all fronts, and the political ground starts shifting under the politicians' feet, even though there was no lobbying or PAC activity.

It gets built into a well-known and respected brand that 1/3 the population says yuck to but another 1/3 loves.

Your understanding that we do not have to appeal to all--the all things to all people fallacy--is the right one. After all, only 1/3 of the American people actually supported the successful Revolution.

But when you talk about an intellectual effort--as opposed to a form of mass appeal, in today's dumbed down intellectual climate--you cannot really target anything like a third, even of the small business community you seek to revitalize. The key is reaching & arming (intellectually) an articulate minority. In this, we may even learn something from the hard-core enemy playbook. Lenin took over Russia with 40,000 Bolsheviks working in concert at the end of 1917; but the force that actually built up to that, numbered only about 10,000, a year & a half earlier.

Just focus on what, say 50,000 articulate & informed Americans, working cohesively & persistently, to counter the prevailing economic & social fallacies, could accomplish. The broader sampling would more likely be several million Americans who loved the effort of that working group; several million who hated them; and 200 million, totally indifferent, watching their entertainment TV, and wondering (in moments of idle curiosity) what the future might hold.

I used to refer to the latter, in drawing historic parallels to the destruction of our heritage, as "cottage gawkers" in olden times, wondering what the invading army marching into their valley might mean for them, when trying to motivate student groups, etc.

William Flax

Thanks for the question.

IMHO...

First, of course, it’s a Christian thing. Even if we are sure that we are doomed, we are called upon to persevere as we see our duty plainly before us, and thus in either case we glorify God. This is not to say that are suicidal, for unto the end we have hope. Hope with the firm assurance either of deliverance or sacrifice. And this touches a very important concept, that of “how is it that I win, or succeed ?” Subtle, yet magnificent. We are commanded to remember at all times to not trust in what we see in the enemy’s capabilities or the hurdle to overcome. Even for a moment. And not our own capabilities. We are taught that anyone can have faith when success is plausible. Confidence is hardly faith in that case, but God desires that we trust in him when our defeat looks certain.

Those in the military, forgive my presumption, but they would, I am sure, concur that the seemingly hopeless situation calls for holding until relieved. Right to the end... thinking of this bothers me... you know who I’m referring to. It makes me angry that four people were wilfully abandoned. God bless those guys and their families.

I’ll just list one more reason, the fact that non-linear changes, if we can get one started, can be difficult to estimate in terms of their growth. Businesses can go from start to billions in sales in what is a shockingly short time, trends can spread increadibly fast, etc. We simply have no way of perceiving future possible events or effects that may give us more time or perhaps quickly change the situation in a dramatic way. The WH and Congress are not in control of all events, nor can they accurately predict the actions of individual (300+million) citizens. This link

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html

shows the CIA trying to figure out how to predict future world events - when the U.S. government is working with NGOs and jihadists to CAUSE the future events.

They don’t even try to pretend they have real jobs, by sitting still and folding their hands, now they just sit blabbering all day publicly, clearly demonstrating that it is high time for most non-military government to get downsized.

Of course, there’s a chance, given the type and size of problems we face, and the direction in which we would be focused, that we would be the critical factor that saved the day.

IMHO, this is not that kind of situation, needing to be “saved”. Congress goes to think tank experts to get their legislation written, then needs to pass it. This is at least a 1-year turnaround. To start to see the effects would be a second year. The only emergency thing they can do is just what Hank Paulson told GWB, give me 700 billion dollars.

IF things got really bad, we’ll all continue what we’re doing, we’ll just be dressed like the Little Rascals and riding on a scooter made from a broken roller skate and a peach crate.

This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public.

While I take no issue with your concept, here, an increasing number of the regulations promulgated by various agencies are actually written by unelected appointees or bureaucrats who garner influence from nameless sources while they, themselves also remain nameless. These are the shadow regulators who increasingly bury not only small business, but the larger businesses upon which small business often depends for revenue stream.

Not all small business caters to the general public, much caters to niche markets meeting the needs of larger corporations.

For instance, I am a company of one. My company hires subcontractors, often similar in size, to do work for larger companies, among which are some of the largest corporate entities on the planet. My company's fiscal health and theirs is interrelated.

Often the regulations which affect the large corporations I do work for are generated by regulatory agencies which are not directly responsible to the electorate, nor the legislature, but exist as part of the executive branch of government, be that at the State or Federal level. Sometimes, those regulations affect me and my subcontractors directly, sometimes only indirectly by affecting the companies I work for, but they all have an effect.

What defense do we as small business owners have against those (often agenda-driven) regulations and the regulators who promulgate those regulations, especially since the probability of influencing regulators (short of injunctive or legislative relief) whose motivations approach religious fervor is nearly nil?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.