Democracy is better off with policy think tanks

In case you missed it media attention recently focused on a US think tank and its worked-up policy plans for a potential future Trump administration.

Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 report, ‘Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise’, is a 925-page, 30-chapter guide for governance. (John Hewson’s Fightback! manifesto was a substantial yet comparatively concise 625 pages.)

One of the more provocative ideas proposed by the policy group — examined eagerly by ABC’s Four Corners program — is the overhaul of the US federal public service, aiming to replace career officials with political appointees.

This idea has sparked controversy and criticism with concerns that such changes could politicise the federal government and prioritise donor interests over the public good.

The Heritage Foundation, established 50 years ago, has a proven track record in influencing policy. Its 1981 roadmap (a 20-volume, 3,000-page handbook containing more than 2,000 policies) significantly shaped Ronald Reagan’s presidency, implementing approximately 60 percent of its policy ideas. Trump’s first-term administration adopted 64 per cent of Heritage’s ideas in its 2018 budget.

Today, the Heritage Foundation continues this tradition with its latest blueprint focusing on economic policy, energy, health care, education, national security and defence.

For context, after the 2020 election, President Joe Biden appointed around 1,000 political appointees to key positions across various federal agencies and departments, reflecting his administration’s priorities and policy goals. If Biden could make such appointments, why shouldn’t Trump have the same opportunity?

A contribution overlooked by the ABC was that of Colonel Chris Miller, former soldier and Acting Defense Secretary in the Trump administration.

Miller proposes to re-establish a culture of command accountability and a warfighting focus; improve the rapid deployment of technology to the battlefield; encourage greater spending and collaboration by Taiwan and allies in the Asia–Pacific like Japan and Australia; support efforts in border protection; increase wages and support for personnel and families; restore trust in the military; rebuild the Army; counter China’s Belt and Road initiative; prioritise nuclear modernisation; and rescue recruiting and retention.

These are hardly crazy ideas. Recently, Miller visited Australia and briefed John Howard. AUKUS was front of mind.

Crafting policy blueprints for incoming administrations is not unique to Heritage. The Progressive Policy Institute, for example, supported Bill Clinton’s centrist policies in 1992, emphasising economic reform and pragmatic governance.

Across the pond, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was instrumental in shaping Margaret Thatcher’s policy agenda leading up to the 1979 UK general election. Only time will tell how much of Heritage’s content a possible future Trump administration will draw on. My guess is about 60 per cent.

Critics often question the impartiality of think tanks, citing their funding sources and potential biases. They argue that think tanks, often funded by private donors or corporate interests, may push agendas that serve specific interests rather than the public good. ESG and corporate activism anyone?

Additionally, there are claims that close relationships between think tanks and political figures can blur the lines between independent research and political advocacy; raising concerns about the objectivity of policy recommendations.

Having worked in government, academia, and now a think tank, I found academia to be the most pressured environment.

However, the role of think tanks in providing well-researched ideas and influencing policymakers cannot be overstated.

Staffed by academics, former journalists and officials, they serve as crucial platforms for public servants and parliamentarians, especially backbenchers, to explore and share ideas.

Notably, many think tanks I have researched are consulted by members from both sides of the political spectrum.

The Albanese government’s review into funding of strategic policy think tanks and university research centres comes at an opportune time. With an increasingly risk-averse public service, think tanks in Australia will be more crucial in driving thinking of new solutions for entrenched problems.

Despite the reporting, there is nothing to fear from the active involvement of think tanks in policy development and public debate.

We should strive for even more think tanks participating in the contest of ideas. Democracy is better for them.

Andrew Blyth is the John Howard Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.