Fusion on the right: An interview with Joe Bast

By Bernard Chapin
web posted June 16, 2003

We are lucky this week, in our Enter Stage Right interview, to
have Mr. Joseph Bast, President of the Heartland Institute,
which defines itself as "a genuinely independent source of
research and commentary founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1984."
Mr. Bast was what one might call Heartland Institute "member
number one" as he was its first employee and began with budget
of only $20 000 a year. Today there are 1 500 donors who
support the institute's operations.

Of note in this particular interview, is Mr. Bast's position that
conservatives and libertarians should combine to become an
united political front. This is certainly sound advice, but as we
know from recent elections, the libertarian vote can make or
break Republican candidates (although much of the press
coverage concerned Mr. Nader and the Greens). Mr. Bast's
tone in the interview is an optimistic one, perhaps not for Illinois,
but for conservatism in general.

BC: Mr. Bast, you are the President of the Heartland Institute,
which is "a nonprofit organization devoted to turning ideas into
social movements that empower people." What ideas have you
been the most successful in transforming into social movements?
Have you found that many of the conservative ideas that were
once considered extreme now have gained mainstream
acceptance?

JLB: Like most free-market think tanks and advocacy groups,
our original mission was to create public support for lower taxes
and less government power. We had some success on these
topics, particularly in Illinois and the Midwest. For example, we
slowed down or stopped public financing of sports stadiums and
arenas in a dozen cities, and helped Chicago partially deregulate
its taxicabs and launch a series of successful privatization efforts.
More recently, as we evolved into a national organization, we
have focused on three other ideas: parental choice in education,
free-market environmentalism, and customer-driven health care.
The first idea is on the brink of victory, the second is winning but
has a ways to go, and the third is new and just getting
widespread attention.

BC: I've written twice before about the Chicago Conservative
Conference, but as one of its organizers, what has been the
benefit to the conservative movement of having gatherings like
this? What do you recommend to people who may be trying to
organize an event like this in their part of the country?

JLB: The Chicago Conservative Conference is an annual meeting
of conservative and libertarian grassroots activists from Illinois
and neighboring states. The Heartland Institute is one of several
organizations that jointly plan and oversee the event and cover its
expenses. These events are a great way to bridge some of the
ideological differences among the groups that make up the
conservative movement. Many cultural conservatives, for
example, believe libertarians are all pro-abortion or pro-drugs,
and they are surprised to discover most are neither. Similarly,
many libertarians think conservatives are soft on taxes,
regulations, and private property rights, and they are surprised
when they meet conservatives who are every bit as principled on
these issues as they are.

I hesitate to give advice to activists outside of Illinois because our
situation may be somewhat unique. Illinois has had liberal or very
moderate Republican governors for 25 years, casting a huge
shadow on efforts to grow grassroots support for conservative
ideas. The state's business community has lined up at the trough
in Springfield for subsidies and special tax breaks for so long that
it lacks a single respected leader willing to publicly endorse
conservative or libertarian ideas. As a result, the conservative
movement in Illinois has shrunk to a core constituency mostly
concerned with social issues like abortion, homosexuality, and
pornography, while the libertarian movement hasn't moved much
beyond its core constituency of tax protesters and drug
legalization advocates. Experience shows these bases are too
narrow to build effective political or social movements. Bringing
them together increases the odds that they can achieve critical
mass and start influencing elections. So for Illinois, it's the right
thing to do.

BC: You do something at Heartland that is very unique as you
generate three different publications: Environment News, Health
Care News and School Reform News. What are the advantages
of offering your supporters news and information in such a
diverse fashion? Will we be seeing a Heartland Magazine in the
near future (similar to a The American Enterprise Magazine)?

JLB: Actually, we published a bimonthly magazine titled
Intellectual Ammunition for 11 years, and only this month
decided to stop publishing it. Environment News, Health Care
News, and School Reform News are genuinely something new
for think tanks and advocacy groups. They are monthly tabloid-
sized newspapers sent to every state and national elected official
in the country (about 8,300 names), plus reporters at every daily
newspaper, about 500 talk radio show hosts, and approximately
25,000 individual grassroots activists who sign up for free
subscriptions. Each newspaper features the best work of the
country's leading think tanks, written in a news style and format
that busy people say they want and use.

We switched to the newspaper format after interviews with state
legislators revealed that they don't read policy studies, books, or
other publications traditionally produced by think tanks.
However, they all read newspapers and depend heavily on them
to know what is happening at the national scene and in other
states. So we figured, why not package free-market research
and commentary as news? It's been amazingly successful.
According a survey of state legislators conducted last year, 86
per cent recognized The Heartland Institute and 60 per cent
thought we were a valuable resource. Over half reported reading
each newspaper.

BC: You must often get confused with the Heritage Foundation.
In fact I myself was confused as one of the books that I got on
education at your conference is actually published by their
organization. With so many different non-profit institutions how
do you distinguish yourselves from the others?

JLB: Our use of the newspaper format certainly makes our
publications stand out from those of other think tanks. We're
also distinguished by our focus on state elected officials. Among
free-market groups, only the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) targets state legislators, and we reach more
state legislators, more often, than they do. The fact that we are
located in Chicago gives us a distinctive look and feel and some
institutional advantages over groups based in the beltway. And
finally, we don't label ourselves "conservative" or "libertarian."
Groups on the Left very seldom label themselves "liberal" or
"leftist," because they want people to think they are mainstream.
We think that's smart strategy, and moreover we have a stronger
claim to being mainstream than they do.

BC: I think that if you can make it in a "blue area" section of the
country like Chicago you could probably make it anywhere. Is
one of the secrets of Heartland's longevity (since 1984) that
you've stayed away from party labels? I've found that among the
inner city teachers I work with there is considerable sympathy to
vouchers and other forms of school reform provided one does
not label it "a Republican idea." How you found that many of the
policy initiatives you advocate have a natural audience among the
inner city population?

JLB: Actually, we found that we could not make it in Chicago,
which is why we decided to become a national rather than state
or regional organization. I'm primarily a writer and publicist, so
The Heartland Institute's comparative advantage has always
been in writing and publishing. The political parties and
governments of Chicago and Springfield, as near as I can figure,
are invincible to good ideas, no matter how eloquently expressed
or frequently published. After ten years of trying to "speak truth
to power," I simply gave up and decided to find more receptive
audiences elsewhere.

Politicians change the way they vote only if they believe some
number of voters is prepared to vote against them. This means
an effective think tank needs to do more than release policy
studies and op-eds. It needs to help build social movements and
bring those movements to the attention of elected officials,
basically to frighten them into doing the right thing. Our monthly
newspapers can play an important role in bringing this about. A
legislator who reads the current issue of School Reform News,
for example, will see a picture of Colorado Gov. Bill Owens on
the front page, surrounded by children, signing a statewide
voucher bill. That one picture, appearing on the front page of a
newspaper that every state legislator and governor in the U.S.
receives, is more likely to change votes than all the policy studies
and op-eds that have ever been written on school choice.

BC: If you could give George W. Bush one winning issue to
enhance his presidency what would it be?

JLB: He should propose shifting resources from the War on
Drugs to the War on Terrorism.

BC: I just read an essay today about privatizing parts of the
ocean as a way to guarantee its security and also its viability as
an economic resource. The author believes that the right must
assert themselves in environmental policy and reclaim this issue
as an area of competency. You, at Heartland, do this all the time.
What environmental policies have you put forth that you most
strongly believe in? Do you see the right gaining ground from the
left on the issue of the environment in the near future?

JLB: The Left has lost or is losing on many fronts, including
taxes, foreign policy, and education. Many of the Left's "best and
brightest," such as they are, have migrated into the environmental
movement since it is by far the best funded and most influential
outpost of the Left that remains. If we want to keep the Left
from reemerging as a significant ideological movement in the
U.S., we need to follow them back to their deepest holes and
root them out. That's why Heartland addresses environmental
issues.

The Left is extremely vulnerable in the environment arena, and
we're making big strides. Environmentalists have lost most of
their credibility with the public, thanks to their repeated lies and
exaggerations in the past. The failure of government to protect
the environment, in fact, and government's role as a major
polluter, is easily proven, and each time we do it, the credibility
of the Left's activist agenda takes a another hit. An
environmentalism based on sound science and respect for private
property rights resonates big time with rural and middle-income
Americans, while Al Gore-type hysterical hype and calls for
government intervention do not. The red-blue map makes it plain
that the 2000 presidential election was at least in part a
referendum on two different types of environmentalism, and the
Left lost.

BC: I read your open letter on your site to Congress regarding
the proposed tax cuts and agree with you wholeheartedly. How
is it best for people like myself and others who deal with liberals
(leftists) on a daily basis to champion the ideas of decreased
government spending and tax cuts? How do you combat the
misguided notion that "tax cuts are for the wealthy?"

JLB: I say, "tax cuts are for people who pay taxes, and since the
poor don't pay taxes in the U.S., middle- and upper-income
people get the lion's share of the benefit when taxes are cut."
Before the Bush tax cuts, 36 million families in the U.S. didn't
pay any income taxes. That's an astounding number that raises
serious fairness issues. But the Bush plan would have increased
that number by nearly 4 million, to 40 million. What's "regressive"
about that? About 97 million families are left to pay all the taxes.
Inflation and economic growth keeps bumping them into higher
tax brackets, so leaving tax rates unchanged means their taxes go
up every year automatically, without any debate or vote.
Fairness demands tax cuts every few years . . . and bigger cuts
than even this President has called for

BC: Until the convention I had never heard of the "Center-Right
Coalition." Do you think that in this post-9/11 environment the
present is the ideal time for the creation of a Republican
majority? Mr. Grover Norquist argued that we need to secure
60 per cent of the vote to govern comfortably. Isn't 60 per cent
a bit fantastic?

JLB: Grover Norquist is a great political strategist, which is
probably just another way of saying I agree with him on this.
Conservatives and libertarians are closer to the center of the
political spectrum than are liberals and their friends on the Left.
Lots of our issues poll at 60 per cent or better. We are not
extreme, they are. We need to say this over and over again so
that people get comfortable aligning themselves with us.

I believe you don't hear this more often from conservative and
libertarian groups because if our ideas are suddenly mainstream,
we lose part of our appeal to donors and op-ed page editors. So
we deny that mainstream politicians are "really" conservative or
are "conservative enough." We deny progress even as we stare it
in the face. The alternative, what Norquist and The Heartland
Institute both are trying to do, is to acknowledge that getting our
ideas into the mainstream was just the first step. Now we need
to build social movements strong enough to change public policy.
We need even more resources now that we're mainstream than
we did when we were at the fringe of public acceptability.

BC: My last question goes back to the schools. Are the public
schools going to get a whole lot worse before they get any
better? I teach a graduate class to teachers and a majority of
them believe that it is the business of schools to raise student's
self-esteem. Do you think an overemphasis on unearned self-
esteem is one of the major problems with our schools today?

JLB: Honestly, I'm not sure how much worse government
schools can get. Most kids already learn more outside of the
classroom than they learn inside the classroom, either in their
homes or in workplaces after they graduate. The "public school
monopoly" is breaking up, thanks to the spread of charter
schools, tax credits, distance learning, homeschooling, and
school vouchers. That break up is occurring more slowly than
most of us would like, but it is inevitable. A free nation that
celebrates freedom of choice in so many areas cannot tolerate a
school system that denies choice to so many and in so many
ways. The most important public policy battle in America is for
school vouchers. Once vouchers are in place, America's K-12
schools will be rescued, and with them our culture and political
institutions.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Bast.

Bernard Chapin is a school psychologist and adjunct faculty
member in Chicago. He can be reached at emeritus@flash.net.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com