In last month’s Heartlander I described how we all choose to remain ignorant about many subjects because it just isn’t worth our time to learn about them all. Big government thrives on this “rational ignorance” because it keeps most people from getting involved in politics, leaving the field open to interest groups, and it protects elected officials from the scrutiny that would otherwise hold them accountable to voters.
I described three ways rational ignorance can be overcome: using images rather than words to quickly and forcefully convey information; branding candidates and political parties so voters can trust them to do what they say they will do; and passing constitutional amendments that limit the size and power of government.
What I didn’t describe is how The Heartland Institute attempts to overcome rational ignorance by publishing four monthly newspapers: School Reform News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, and Budget & Tax News. Since two-thirds of Heartland’s budget is devoted to producing these newspapers, you deserve to know why we think they can overcome such a major barrier to reform.
What Do Elected Officials Read?
Ten years ago, when Heartland began its transition from a state-based think tank to a national organization, we met with elected state officials to find out what they read and how they make decisions. We asked them, “what would we have to do to become an indispensable source of research and commentary for you?”
We learned a lot, but the most important insight was that elected officials are just as rationally ignorant as you and I about most public policy issues. They don’t read policy studies or books, don’t attend conferences, and don’t save articles for later reference. They are often small business owners or wage earners, and politics is a part-time or short-term thing for them, not a career. They have little or no staff to help them.
So where do elected officials go for information on public policy issues? They read newspapers, often three or more a day. Newspapers overcome legislators’ rational ignorance because they focus on events rather than opinion, are easy to read, cover many topics, present a variety of opinions, have short articles, and are cheap. Thanks to repetition and longevity, newspapers have come to be viewed by policymakers as an indispensable source of information.
Flying Under the Radar
We decided that if our goal is to influence state policymakers, we should stop producing policy studies, books, and other seldom-read conventional publications and instead “fly under the radar” by imitating the style and content of newspapers.
We hired editors to write news stories citing the latest and best research and commentary from other free-market think tanks and advocacy groups. We persuaded experts on the staffs of other think tanks to write articles for us. We assembled an art department to design and produce newspapers that look as good as, or better than, any daily newspaper in the country. And we assembled a publishing team to efficiently manage ad sales and circulation.
The results have been impressive. Our latest survey of state elected officials found 73 percent are familiar with The Heartland Institute, 45 percent say they have used a Heartland publication, and 41 percent say Heartland is a “very” or “somewhat” valuable resource or aid. Of those surveyed, 37 percent say they read Environment & Climate News always or sometimes, 62 percent say they read School Reform News, and 53 percent say they read Health Care News.
Writing to Persuade, Not Inform
Daily newspapers are good templates for an effective publication design, but not necessarily good guides for editorial philosophy. The more carefully we studied the motivation and choices of elected officials, the more we became convinced the goal of our newspapers should not be to educate elected officials about issues, but to create the appearance of political success and popular support for elected officials who support free-market ideas.
Because they are content to remain rationally ignorant about most public policy issues, elected officials won’t choose to read one of our publications to learn more about, say, global warming. Instead, they will scan the headlines for ideas and tactics that will help them advance their political careers, and specifically for ways to get positive publicity and avoid negative publicity.
Stories about public officials who fail to be reelected because they oppose free-market ideas are priceless. Retelling the story of the Wisconsin state senator who was recalled by voters because he cast the deciding vote to subsidize a new baseball stadium, for example, is likely to influence more elected officials than an entire shelf of policy studies showing how high taxes cause slower economic growth and destroy jobs.
Second best are stories about public officials who reap public support and national attention for doing the right thing. Every time the President, a governor, or a member of Congress strikes a blow for free markets, we try to present stories casting them in a favorable light. Many state legislators aspire to be governor or a member of Congress, and the unsubtle message to them is that the way to get there is to champion the issues and ideas that have made today’s governors and national elected officials celebrities.
Third best are stories presenting evidence of growing public support for free-market ideas. The picture of 3,000 people rallying for school choice in Florida on the cover of the current issue of School Reform News creates that impression. So do articles about polls showing public support for school choice, lower taxes, and consumer choice in health care. Polls are to politics what prices are to markets–it is no wonder politicians love them.
Where’s the Ideology?
Most elected officials do not have well-thought-out ideologies. They view libertarians, conservatives, and liberals as dogmatic “true believers.” In their world, that translates into “unreliable” and “not credible.” They can’t imagine how studying our principles–becoming an ideologue–could possibly help them get reelected. Truth be told, they are probably right.
Lobbyists are often more effective than think tanks because they appeal to what motivates elected officials, rather than to abstract principles. A lobbyist typically makes the briefest possible case for his client, usually offering talking points of no more than one page so the elected official can present his position without being laughed at (“passes the red face test” is how lobbyists put it).
The lobbyist then spends much more time arranging opportunities for positive publicity and introducing the elected official to people who can contribute to or otherwise help with his next campaign. Also important is the pledge of continued friendship–either sincere or something more like camaraderie–if the elected official does the right thing.
Think tanks can learn much from lobbyists. If we put our “principles” on display on page one of our publications, we risk diminishing our credibility in the eyes of most elected officials. If we seek to “educate” elected officials with long and carefully researched articles, they will seldom bother to read our work.
If, on the other hand, we write about the rising tide of free-market ideas across the country (and even around the world) and how political leaders who ride this wave are winning elections and moving up the ladder to higher offices, we stand a much better chance of being read and actually changing the actions of elected officials. By itself this may not be enough to change the world, but it is an important–I would say critical–ingredient in the overall recipe for reform.
What Do You Think?
I always appreciate feedback and advice from Heartland donors and members. Please send me an email at [email protected] if you have reactions to this essay.
