🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Prof. Welden,

 This is just the sort of "PR" science that we have to fight all the time.
Have you read Paul's new book "The Betrayal of Science and Reason"?

I am attaching below a summary of a recent piece you may want to look at.
Thanks for call this nonsense to our attention.  Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------

In her new report, MOVING A PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA: THE STRATEGIC
PHILANTHROPY OF CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS, Sally Covington traces
the origins of the modern political climate to a dozen
philanthropic foundations, which for 20 years have pursued a
coherent, strategic approach to philanthropy.[1]

Covington defines "conservatives" as those holding two core
values: favoring the smallest possible government and maintaining
faith in the free market to solve all our problems.  She traces
the many ways in which these core ideas have spread throughout
our society in the last 20 years, underpinning such diverse
efforts as cutting housing programs for the elderly and disabled;
claiming that enforcing environmental laws is a "taking" of a
polluter's property rights; scholarship purporting to show that
blacks aren't victims of historical racism, they're just not as
smart as whites; school vouchers, which would undermine support
for public schools; and much more...

Covington examines in detail the funding philosophies and
activities of 12 conservative foundations during the years
1992-1994.[2]  During the period, these foundations gave away
$300 million, targeting $210 million of it to support 16 national
think tanks and advocacy organizations; 9 media groups; 9 law
reform groups; 5 state and regional think tanks and advocacy
groups; 3 religion reform groups; and 2 philanthropic
institutions and networks.  Together these grantees represent an
impressively coherent nationwide network linking conservatives in
academia, Congress, the media, law firms, think tanks, and
churches.  Between them, they create and maintain an unrelenting
rightward pressure on colleges and universities, newspapers,
magazines, and TV stations, state legislatures, the Congress, the
federal judiciary, and on philanthropy itself.  They not only
influence public debate; in many instances they define it.

A small nucleus of 18 conservative organizations received 75% of
the $210 million.  Many of their names are familiar to anyone who
reads a newspaper: the Heritage Foundation (which helped produce
Newt Gingrich's Contract With America); the American Enterprise
Institute; and the Cato Institute.  But many of them are less
well-known though still very effective:

** George Mason University's Law and Economics Center has as its
mission to teach federal judges that the goal of the law should
be to maximize the wealth of society by promoting the efficient
use of scarce resources.  Thus conceived, the law is no longer
about the Constitution, or about ethics or justice.  In this
view, courts become an appendage of the market, promoting
efficiency, not equity.  By 1991, the Law and Economics Center
had provided such training to 40% of all federal judges by
offering them all-expense-paid seminars held at resort locations.
Teaching 40% of all federal judges to see the world your way
--now THAT'S effective advocacy.

** The American Studies Center coordinates Radio America --a
network of 2000 radio stations promoting small government and
free-market solutions.  (See www.radioamerica.org.)

** The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation created
National Empowerment Television, a nationwide, interactive
24-hour TV network described in 1992 by political commentator
David Gergen as "the creation of a new politics in America" for
its ability to mobilize and interact with core constituencies on
issues ranging from immigration to tax policy to welfare reform.

** The American Enterprise Institute hires ghost writers for
op-ed opinion pieces which are then signed by scholars and are
sent to 101 "cooperating" newspapers across the country --3
articles every 2 weeks.

** The Reason Foundation serves as a clearinghouse on
privatization and aggressively markets its ideas to the media,
resulting in 359 TV and radio appearances, and over 1500
citations in national newspapers and magazines in 1995 alone.

** The Center for the Study of Popular Culture launched the Media
Integrity Project in 1987 to attack National Public Radio for
"left-wing bias."  Soon the Accuracy in Media Project escalated
the attack with its accusation that NPR was broadcasting
"blatantly pro-Communist propaganda."  Twelve years later, NPR's
public funding has been drastically cut and, to survive, it has
been forced to air commercial messages for major corporations
--thus applying a subtle but unmistakable corporate discipline to
the news.

** The Heartland Institute publishes PolicyFax free for elected
officials and journalists.  This fax-on-demand service puts
hundreds of short policy documents from leading conservative
think-tanks into the hands of those who need a conservative spin
on an issue. Environment-and-health titles include these: THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER EPIDEMIC THAT NEVER WAS; SILICONE BREAST
IMPLANTS: WHY HAS SCIENCE BEEN IGNORED?; OZONE DEPLETION --WHAT
YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT THE OZONE LAYER; FOUR STEPS TO REFORMING
SUPERFUND; and so on. (See www.heartland.org.)

** The 30-member staff of American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) provides technical assistance to the conservative policy
movement at the state level, including development of model
legislation and conferences.  More than 26,000 state legislators
--more than 1/3 of all the state legislators in the country
--have joined ALEC.

** Capital Research Center (CRC) publishes FOUNDATION WATCH to
critique the "liberal" funding initiatives of major foundations.
A recent issue attacked the Catholic Church's Campaign for Human
Development (CHD) for funding poor people's organizations and
other social-action community groups.

In 20 short years, these 12 foundations have significantly
altered every major institution in our society --universities,
Congress, state legislatures, the judiciary, the media, and
philanthropic foundations. What is the secret of their success?
Here is what Sally Covington says:

** Conservative grants are overtly and unabashedly political.
Conservative grantees are rewarded for their shared political
vision, and public policy activism.  They are heavily supported
to market policy ideas, cultivate public leadership, lobby policy
makers, and build their base of constituents.  In contrast,
liberal grantees are often pressed to demonstrate their
uniqueness to funders, and to downplay their ideology and public
policy advocacy.

** Conservative funders work to build strong institutions by
providing general operating support, rather than project-specific
funding.  This unrestricted money gives grantees considerable
flexibility to attract, train and keep talented people, launch
special projects, and build their databases and skills.

** Conservatives emphasize marketing and communications
techniques, funding grantees to flood the media and political
marketplace with conservative policy ideas, and to communicate
with and mobilize their constituency base.

** They have made long-term funding commitments, providing large
grants over a multi-year, and, in some cases, a multi-decade
period. Long-term funding has anchored conservative institutions,
allowing them to take the offensive on key social, economic, and
regulatory policy issues.

** Conservatives support conservative scholarship, rapid-fire
research and advocacy, lobbying, strategic litigation, leadership
development, and constituency mobilization --all the important
components of an effective policy movement.

** Conservatives emphasize networking with other groups around a
common reform agenda.

** They invest in recruitment, training, placement, and media
visibility of conservative public intellectuals and policy
leadership.

Through clarity of vision and steadiness of purpose, these 12
foundations have now created a new phenomenon that Sally
Covington calls "a supply-side version of American politics in
which policy ideas with enough money behind them will find a
niche in the political marketplace regardless of existing citizen
demand."  -
===============
[1] Sally Covington, MOVING A PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA: THE STRATEGIC
PHILANTHROPY OF CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS (Washington, D.C.:
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1998).  52 pages.
Available for $25 from: National Committee for Responsible
Philanthropy, 2001 S Street, N.W., #620, Washington, D.C. 20009;
phone: (202) 387-9177; fax: (202) 332-5084.  And see: Sally
Covington, "How Conservative Philanthropies and Think Tanks
Transform US Policy," COVERT ACTION QUARTERLY No. 63 (Winter
1998), pgs. 6-16.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 01:39 PM 3/20/98 -0800, you wrote:
>The other day, someone posted a query about a paper titled "Environmental =
>Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" which presents evidence =
>that global warming is not happening, and that increased atmospheric CO2 =
>is environmentally beneficial.
>  That paper has just arrived in my snail mail. It looks like a reprint =
>from a journal, and has a publication date of "January 1998." There is no =
>indication of journal title, volume, or number. Page numbers run from 1 to =
>8. Nowhere in the accompanying materials is there a claim that this paper =
>was published in any journal.
>  In the envelope with it was a reprint from the Wall Street Journal (4 =
>Dec  97) of an article titled "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a =
>Myth" by two of the same authors.=20
>  Also in the envelope was a petition to "the United States government" to =
>reject the Kyoto agreement, along with a return envelope addressed to =
>Petition Project in La Jolla, CA.
>  Two authors' affiliation is listed as Oregon Institute of Science and =
>Medicine in Cave Junction , OR. I teach at Southern Oregon University in =
>Ashland, not far away, and I had never before heard of that institute. As =
>far as I know, it's not a part of the Oregon University System. The other =
>two authors' affiliation is given as the George C. Marshall Institute in =
>Washington, DC.
>  I have not read the paper, and I pass no judgement on the validity of =
>the argument or the evidence presented there.
>Charles Welden
>Department of Biology
>Southern Oregon University
>Ashland, OR
>welden@sou.edu
>
>

   ****************************************************************************

      Doug La Follette         Wisconsin Secretary of State
                               Box 7848, Madison, WI.  53707
                               608-266-8888  fax 608-266-3159

      Technology is of no use to us if it is used without respect for
      the earth and its processes.
                                    - Aldo Leopold
   *****************************************************************************