Ever take a brief look at a "non-partisan" think tank's website? Usually within a few seconds it is obvious that there is a partisan agenda. How can any rational person base their findings on a particular political or economic agenda? The answer is that they can't if they let the facts lead to their conclusions. However, think tanks start with their conclusions and then find evidence to support them.
What brought this to mind was the DeLay problems. It appears that all or a portion of the infamous golfing trip to Scotland was paid for by the The National Center for Public Policy Research. If a think tank has a particular partisan agenda, how is their financing a politician's agenda any different than a lobbyist's?
Another think tank I found interesting, because I happen to live in Wisconsin and attend UWO, is the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc. One of the more prolific posters to this website is a member and every time I read his articles or postings it was always to criticize the "left" and the "liberals." This made me wonder how non-partisan the institute was that he belonged to.
Without a doubt, with just a quick glance it is obvious that it consists of people with a conservative political agenda.
Researching a bit more, I went to Mediatransparency.org to get another perspective. From their site they have links to articles from Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc. that give a "flavor" of the instituter's politics.
One article was titled, "Why College Is Too Cheap". Here, the number of remedial classes offered is pointed out as a waste of college resources for those students blessed with an education that allows them to enter college at a sufficient level.
Now, between high school and college, I happened to spend 10 years in the USAF and when I enrolled at a local community college my entrance scores required that I take "bonehead" math and English. As a matter of fact, it took me 3 introductory algebra classes to finally pass college algebra.
Interestingly, this was after 4 years of high school electronics and working as an electronic technician for 10 years in the USAF. Every electronics class I took I aced, but I could not make the connection between the abstract use of algebra and the contextual algebra of electronics.
The conservative viewpoint as presented in the report would seem to be that based upon my abilities and my remedial needs, I was not a good candidate for college. Nor would I contribute enough to the society as a whole to justify the state picking up part of the tab. (Actually, the Department of Veterans Affairs paid for my BA through the vocational rehabilitation program, but depending on how you look at college costs, the taxpayer still pays a portion of any students tuition, thus I would gather I was not fiscally cost effective.)
Today, almost 20 years after entering college and muddling my way through those classes I have my BA degree in Business, achieved my minor in political science, completed all the required courses for my teaching license (including 3 masters courses) and am awaiting the time to student teach. This was while working full time and being a single parent with a 3.39 GPA.
When I look at conservative critical essays or reports from these "think tanks" geared against the "liberals" they never seem to have definitive solutions. Just arguments based on politically philosophical differences. Most are just anecdotal instances where liberals are wrong. This puts them in a very good position to critique without having to present their ideas to debate.
I am just as critical of liberal think tanks that try to pass themselves off as non-partisan. Yet, when I do read their reports I see solutions being presented, not just a laundry list of problems.
When it comes to history, both sides look through a politically partisan lens and try to claim the true view of history. Neither side is interested in discussing how some unpleasant aspects of American history can be balanced, they just want to promote their own views while denigrating those of their opponents.