Sound like they seek to push a certain conservative agenda found only in the republican party (I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians around heritage but the libertarian party is marginalized enough not to be of any serious consequence). Not supporting No Child Left Behind ad the Medicare Part D program doesn't mean you can't be a policy institute dedicated to pushing a more conservative agenda withing the Republican party. They gave Nixon hell as well. They did host the Republican presidential debate, they named a center after Thatcher. I know lots of Republicans who despise Bush, hate NCLB and Medicare part D, thinking that both of these policies were stabs in the back to their values. I didn't say that President Bush directed the research at heritage, I said that they are the research arm of the Republican party. They give the intellectual firepower to push the conservative agenda, an agenda that maps up with a very powerful and significant part of the Republican party. I believe they are the most influential think tank supporting the republicans. If you think they are non-partisan that's cool think what you like I have a pretty good idea of the objectivity of a guy who pushes 'The Night Watchmen'. When I think of a non-partisan think tank I think of the CFR, I've had people disagree with me on both sides of the isle about that one. Anyway a foundation that puts up videos of Rush Limbaugh with seriousness and respect pretty much wears their heart on their sleeve. I support some of Heritages issues mostly free trade and nuclear issues, supporting an issue doesn't mean I'm blind to what side they are on.mission 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.
To say they are the "research arm of the Republican Party" shows you don't read their stuff, don't consider their stuff, and only read or listen to people who don't read or study their conclusions either.
The fuck you know what I read, bet I got more Milton Friedman in my library then you do buddy.
I don't pretend to know all that you read, but to say it is a "research arm of the Republican party" is not factual. Yes, as I stated in my opening, they are a conservative, non-partisan think tank is true; they will call anybody's baby ugly if they don't agree no matter what their political "tag". That is all I meant. Would Republicans tend to use them for research, sure, why not, it is conservative and not liberal (which today still means the opposite of what it mean in prior centuries). I have read a lot of Milton Friedman (Art Williams circulated his articles in the 1980's and 1990's very commonly); however I don't own a lot of his books. I own more of Friedrich Hayekâs books and Alexis de Tocqueville's books, but I do admire Milton Friedman's thought process and free market positions. I do like Brooking's research too, which is certainly not the "think tank of choice" for most conservatives; however, they make a good effort at research to support their positions. Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership.
Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership. I'll check out CFR. Do you look at CATO?
I mostly follow Council of Foreign Relations as far as weekly listening (great podcast) and reading. I like Pete Peterson as a pragmatic conservative who listens to all points of view I really think he put a stamp on CFR's process for non-partisan scholarship. Personally I don't think an organization can call itself non-partisan and a liberal or conservative at the same time, that kind of talk is just window dressing for the tax man. It's fine to have think tanks with an agenda but I think going at policy with an agenda will generally distort the honesty of the conclusion. I find it much more credible when the resulting issue paper from a think tank came from people from across the spectrum with a consensus section and a section of individual dissents which is what I get from CFR.