A Brief Analysis of the Political Orientation and Stance on China of Major American Think Tanks in Recent Years

Abstract: American think tanks play an important role in the political and diplomatic decision-making of the United States. The study of the political stance of the main think tanks in the United States is of great significance for the study and judgment of the trend and policy orientation of the US diplomacy. In this paper, major American think tanks are selected as empirical research cases, and the positions and projection capabilities of American think tanks in recent years are sorted out according to the main ways of influence of American think tanks on American politics. One of the core and essential features of US politics and foreign policy is the so-called elite group composed of big capital, military industry group and "deep state", which tries to achieve a high degree of control over US foreign policy by influencing the external cognition of US society. Whether the US government has sharply hardened its "rightward" policy towards China since the successive administrations of Trump and Biden, or the US think tanks have followed the trend of promoting the "rightward" direction of China-related research, these are the external manifestations of this essential feature.

Think tank generally refers to the "warehouse" that stores knowledge and provides ideas. Think tanks wield enormous influence in American political life. Since World War II, the number of think tanks in the United States has nearly tripled, and to date, the United States has more than 1,800 think tanks of different sizes and positions, with annual revenues of more than $1 billion. American think tanks release a large number of policy research reports every year, trying to guide domestic and even international public opinion, and then influence the official policies of the United States, which is called the "fifth power" by the American media. Since 2016, US policy towards China has taken a sharp turn to the right, behind which there is the shadow of American think tanks. The right deviation mentioned in this article refers to the tendency that political and ideological understanding lags behind reality, cannot change and advance with the changed objective circumstances, or even goes against the objective law of development. This paper intends to make a brief analysis and assessment of the political trend of American think tanks at this stage, especially the "rightward" shift of the stance of some think tanks actively involved in China policy.

1. Distribution of think tanks in the current American political spectrum

The U.S. policy community relies heavily on think tanks for policy advice, and the close cooperation between the government and think tanks is rare in the world. This strong and special connection and interaction has created a complex political divide in the United States, with think tanks of all sizes widely distributed across the political spectrum from the left to the center to the right.

Politically centrist think tanks account for a large proportion of major think tanks. Among them, Larger or more influential think tanks include the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Council on Foreign Relations and the RAND Corporation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and so on. The younger Center such as the Center  for New American Security and the New America Foundation are also not tied to a particular party position. Among these think tanks, there are some large think tanks with relatively comprehensive research fields, and neutral or not obvious political opinions are more conducive to their extensive policy recommendations or lobbying work.

There are also influential think tanks on the left of the political spectrum. The Brookings Institution, for example, is generally considered as a political neutral think tank, but its research in recent years and the background of its research staff suggest that the think tank has shifted to the left-of-center political position. One of the more prominent left-wing think tanks is the Center for American Progress, which has close ties to the Democratic Party, particularly during the Obama years. In addition, the Carter Center, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Urban Institute are among the largest left-wing think tanks in the United States.

The largest and most influential of the right-wing conservative think tanks is the Heritage Foundation, which has expertise in economic and fiscal policy and has been the most prominent representative of the conservative intellectual community in the United States since the Reagan administration. In addition, the Cato Institute has established its position in the think tank community with its distinctive liberal stance, and in recent years, especially during the Trump administration, its position has been similar to that of the US policy community. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the Hoover Institution, and the Project for a New American Century , the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Institute for the Study of War and the Atlantic Council are right-wing think tanks.

Historically, the number of think tanks in the United States with far-left or far-right positions is relatively small. However, in recent years, especially since Trump and Biden successively took office as US presidents, the major think tanks in the United States have shown a relatively significant shift in the overall structure of "from left to center" and "from center to right". This can be clearly seen from the process of change in the position of major authoritative US think tanks on China.

2. The current position of American think tanks on China is increasingly "right-leaning".

Traditionally, many major U.S. think tanks have departments and teams focused on Asia or China studies. In recent years, as China has gradually become the focus of American foreign policy and global strategy, more think tanks have gradually shifted their foreign policy research focus to the study of China, especially the study of China's foreign policy, foreign influence and power structure in various fields.

For a long time, most major American think tanks have not formed a very obsessive view and position on China; The few think tanks that take a harder line on China are usually on the political right; On the other hand, center-leaning or left-leaning think tanks usually do not hold extreme policies and principles for China, and even some left-leaning think tanks hold relatively friendly positions toward China. For example, many researchers at the Council on Foreign Relations, a bipartisan think tank that serves as an important reference for U.S. foreign policy advice, favor maintaining normal diplomatic relations with China. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which maintains a long-term cooperative relationship with China's Tsinghua University, is also one of the American think tanks with a relatively good understanding of China.

The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Cato Institute, which belongs to the right side of the political spectrum, are among the more typical think tanks with hawkish views on China. In addition, according to various reports in recent years, two think tanks that used to be politically neutral - the RAND Corporation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies - have also gradually "turned right" and appeared from time to time in the camp of think tanks that are more hawkish toward China. In recent years, the RAND Corporation has paid close attention to the development of China's military strength, published a number of special research reports, and put forward countermeasures and suggestions to the US government. Some think tanks focused on specific issues, although their original positions were neutral or not significant, have begun to turn right and gradually harden their attitude toward China, such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which has always focused on foreign policy and international relations. The Jamestown Foundation, founded in the Cold War period, started from the study of the Soviet Union, the Cold War opponent of the United States. At present, its research objects and fields are mainly Russia, China and anti-terrorism. From its birth background and development track, it can be judged that its overall stance toward China tends to be hawkish. Compared with most major US think tanks, think tanks that tend to be neutral towards China are only neutral based on the US political framework and values, which may not be the same as a friendly stance towards China. Many centrist think tanks are more or less critical of China in some policy studies, but compared with the major right-wing hawkish think tanks that hold a tough stance on China, their criticism is more directed at specific policies and areas, rather than highlighting or even amplifying ideological, political and cultural differences.

In general, although US think tanks still maintain a neutral or not very clear position on China research to a certain extent, with the four years of Trump's administration, the US government and the opposition have set off a wave of hatred, hostility and extreme suppression of China, and the Biden administration's "follow the rules" attitude toward Trump's China policy after taking office, the US has formed a whole-of-government hardline attitude toward China. As the think tank of the US government, it is impossible for US think tanks to follow this trend from the outside, so the number of think tanks with a hardline and hawkish stance towards China is increasing, and they are gradually affecting the strategic judgment of the US elite and decision-making community. For China, to maintain and establish new channels of contact with the United States through think tank channels, the future may face greater challenges.

3. How does the "right-leaning" trend of U.S. think tanks affect U.S. policy toward China

3.1 Communicate opinions and policy recommendations to decision makers or the public in an open manner

American think tanks are good at building platforms to influence government decision-making and public opinion, such as holding academic seminars and giving speeches at academic institutions. Actively using public platforms to provide channels for the public to express their opinions, in recent years, more and more use of network social platforms to disseminate research results and guide public opinion.

Many research results of conservative center-right think tanks have played a very important supporting and even leading role in the economic, foreign and security policies of the US government. Take think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the RAND Corporation, and the Center for a New American Security as an example. From 2017 to 2018, more than 360 online communication reports on China-related issues were produced, putting forward "phenomenon" views such as "Cold War of science and technology" and "New Cold War", which were widely used by the strategic community and public opinion circles in the United States.

After the Trump administration took office, the "right-wing" trend of the research community on China policy and strategy began to rise, and some conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Hudson Institute with a far-right color, set up a platform for anti-China forces. It has become the birthplace or even the base camp of anti-China rhetoric. Nicholas Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Petterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, wrote in late 2018, "The State Strikes Back: The End of China's Economic Reform", many views are put forward on the development and trend of China's economy, questioning China's implementation of the so-called "state advance and people retreat" economic development strategy. This view has won the attention and even recognition of many American politicians, causing their dissatisfaction with China's political system and economic policies and their worry about China's rise. Us politicians have supported the US government's policy of pressuring China to change its economic structure, open its market and even change its political system.

3.2 Directly participate in the diplomatic decision-making process through the "revolving door" mechanism, and deliver relevant policy recommendations directly to decision-makers

Through the "revolving door" mechanism, the United States has established a stable and flexible communication channel, firmly binding government departments and senior think tank talents, and providing the latter with space to participate in policy formulation directly or indirectly on a regular basis. For example, some think tank researchers directly serve as cabinet officials of the president or are employed as staff advisers in the office of the President, or serve as members of advisory committees between the President and Congress. The opinions of individual researchers or think tanks are communicated directly to executive agencies and their heads, as well as to legislative bodies.

Think tank scholars joined the president's "Cabinet team" and "White House team" almost systematically, promoting the "revolving door" to rotate at a high speed, and greatly improving the influence of think tanks on the foreign policy of the United States government. 

During Trump's term in office, some members of the US foreign policy team came directly or indirectly from think tanks, especially the team with a strong Chinese background began to conduct foreign policy towards China. It can be seen that it is precisely since the Trump period that the trend of "rightward tilt" of US think tanks has increased significantly, which has played an important role in the formulation of tough policies against China, including anti-China policies such as cutting off the US dollar connection with China, the Hong Kong-dollar exchange rate mechanism, and the signing of the US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, which have been in the policy reserve box of relevant right-wing think tanks. At the same time, some objective and neutral center-left American think tanks have been sharply marginalized, their influence on the US government's major decisions on China has been greatly reduced, and some think tank scholars who know and are friendly to China have been silenced or even suppressed, creating a "chilling effect".

3.3 US business consortia use think tanks as "cover" to promote money politics to influence US policies towards China

The operation of American think tanks mostly relies on the support of individual and commercial donations, which makes it difficult for a considerable number of American think tanks to ensure the independence of their positions and viewpoints when carrying out research work.

Among the groups that donate funds to think tanks, enterprises, business associations, individuals and foundations occupy a considerable proportion, and some think tanks' donation income even reaches 70% or more of their total income. The Brookings Institution, for example, derives more than 90 percent of its annual revenue from donations, mostly from Eastern American consortium such as the Rockefeller Consortium. Interest groups and financial giants are generally hidden behind American think tanks, and social donations and foundation support often become the "white gloves" of these consortia. In addition to the large consortia funding think tanks to conduct some advanced research beneficial to society for reasons of religious belief and moral tradition, most of the research has personal or institutional purposes, either seeking greater economic benefits, or influencing public opinion or government decision-making through the research results of think tanks to achieve their political purposes. For example, multinational oil companies, Boeing, Raytheon and other defense suppliers. Some wealthy people also fund think tanks in the form of foundations to indirectly achieve their own business or political purposes.

For American think tanks, the financial support of donors or foundations is crucial, and the more famous and influential think tanks are, the stronger their ability to "attract money". For example, the Brookings Institution, one of the "first phalanx" think tanks in the United States, has an annual budget of more than $60 million, but it is still not the richest think tank in the United States. The right-wing Center for Strategic and International Studies and the RAND Corporation, due to their close ties with the US military and military industry groups, have a larger budget than that of the Brookings Institution. Of course, their research results undoubtedly need to meet the claims and needs of their "financial backers" as much as possible, so various so-called "China Strategy reports" and "China military reports" that play up the "China threat theory" are frequently issued. In order to "endorse" the US government's large-scale arms purchases from the military industry, which often provides research funds for think tanks.

3.4 Provide policy recommendations directly to the U.S. government through professional research, or invite government officials to participate in think tank research topic planning and internal policy discussions

Government departments often invite think tank researchers to participate in policy discussions through policy consultations and closed-door discussions.

During the Trump administration, the relationship between the White House and conservative think tanks has become closer. The Hudson Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks have increased their input, maintained closer communication with White House officials, and actively participated in the Trump administration's decision-making process on China. At the same time, by publishing monographs, publishing research reports, participating in congressional hearings, organizing academic conferences, increasing media appearances, and hosting government projects, they spare no effort to mobilize the whole society, including stakeholders such as the media and the public, to coordinate and interact with each other, expand public opinion and international influence on China from the outside, and indirectly help the US government achieve its policy goals toward China.

4. Conclusion

Since the successive administrations of Trump and Biden, the US government's strategy and policy orientation towards China have undergone great changes, with the main focus being on economy, trade and technology. At the same time, other areas of bilateral relations have also been strained across the board, and the US elite has gradually reached consensus on the issue of "fierce competition" against China. China-related issues have taken on unprecedented importance and sensitivity in US foreign policy, and have almost become one of the first or at least the core concerns of major US think tanks.

Along with the sharp hardening of the "right turn" of the US government's policy toward China, the "right turn" of the US think tank is becoming more and more obvious. Regardless of the severely "right-leaning" think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, which takes pride in its far-right label, the Brookings Institution, which leans to the left in color and stance and has scholars such as Li Cheng who hold relatively objective positions on China, is hardly immune to the "right-leaning" trend of the rise of American think tanks in recent years. Robert Kargan, a senior fellow in the think tank's China Order and Strategy Program, a representative of American neoconservatives and a leading foreign policy expert, wrote in Foreign Affairs on April 6, 2022, "The Price of Hegemony: Can the United States Learn to Use its Power?" He urged a war against Russia and China, saying "the United States wants to... "The United States should adopt the same policy toward China by making it clear that the United States is prepared to... Effectively respond with force to any Chinese military action in its immediate vicinity." Robert Kargan's wife, Newland Kargen, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, orchestrated the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and installed the subsequent Ukrainian government. In an April 12, 2022, op-ed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hodges, Salon magazine stated that "the same warmongering foreign policy experts and government officials plan military operations year after year... They are fickle and politically savvy, bouncing back and forth between the Republican and Democratic parties... They are the 'pimps' of war, the puppets of the Pentagon, the defense contractors who provide a lot of support to the think tanks they work for. These think tanks include the American New Century Project, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the Foreign Policy Institute, the Institute for the Study of War, the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, and others."

It can be seen that behind the "right tilt" trend of American think tanks is the desire of the consortiums, military industry groups and Wall Street financial giants behind the US government, and the convergence of interests of the establishment of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, which will certainly harm not only people's healthy thinking, but also world peace and even the survival of mankind. Because the "rightward" trend of American think tanks is imperceptibly weaving the veneer of rationality and legitimacy for a world war. (Author: Li Dingxin, Fellow of Strategic Studies department, Center for Contemporary World Studies;  Huang Hui, Fellow of the Institute of Contemporary China and the World)