Joe Overton,–“he of the Overton window,” as Howard Cosell would have said—saw “think-tanks” as a prime mover of the range of acceptable ideas. They advocate for opening, closing, and moving or not moving the “window.”
Inspired by Overton, political scientist Daniel Drezner examined the development of this “ideas industry” with regard to his own academic specialty, international relations.[1]
Drezner argues that times have changed. Once upon a time, the general public received enlightenment and guidance from “public intellectuals.” Commonly, these were subject-area experts, often academics who wrote fluently. What they wrote provided a kind of small-ball explanation of the events at the center of attention and controversy at any given moment.[2] Newspapers and journals of opinion read by the next several tiers of regional and local opinion-leaders received the fruits of this expertise, then communicated it to the larger readership. Generally, various levels of the public could respond through “Letters to the Editor.”
Those days are, to an extent, gone the way of the Blackberry. The “public intellectuals” have been shouldered into the second rank by what Drezner calls “thought leaders.” They differ from their predecessors in two ways. First, commonly they are not generalists with opinions on all sorts of things. They are One Big Idea people.[3] They provide a context for thinking about “all the frequent troubles of our days”[4] within some framework. Examples of such thought leaders would include Francis Fukuyama and Tom Friedman.[5] Second, they reach their audiences in new venues: TED talks, blogs, Twitter. Experienced editors don’t make a selection of reader responses to illustrate the diversity of reactions. You just get Likes and much yelling.
Drezner argues that the creation and dissemination of Ideas now reflects several decades of accumulating changes. The era of globalization and tech booms created immense new fortunes. Once upon a time, much of that wealth might have flowed to building libraries or art galleries. Now, privately-funded–and to a degree opaque–“think tanks” adopt the ideological perspective of their patrons. Finally, there’s been a general decline of Authority in favor of individual Liberty.[6] Arguably, audiences on left and right seek voices who tell them what they want to hear, regardless of competence or wisdom. Arguably, there are far too many people who tailor their commentary to what people want to hear.[7]
Thee are symptoms, more than causes, of America’s bitter partisan quarrels.
[1] Daniel Drezner, The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas (2017).
[2] It’s not completely fair to offer Walter Lippman as the “beau-ideal” of the public intellectual as described above. On Lippmann, see Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (1980).
[3] This is not so different from what historians do when they write books on the “Age of…” this, that, or the other period. It’s just that Thought Leaders are writing mid-stream without any knowledge of how things will play out.
[4] Stole that from the title of Rachel Donner’s biography of Mildred Harnack.
[5] See, for example, Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992); Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (1999); The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (2005).
[6] I’m not sure that Drezner understands how pervasive the change has been. He is preoccupied with subject-area expertise. Much of this disdain springs from revelations of incompetence and corruption on the part of Authorities.
[7] For an example from one side, but readers can find the same stuff on the Right: Robert Reich – The goal is to deflect and distract – to use… | Facebook
waroftheworldblog 