Hackster Central: Observations Of the Foreign Policy Think-Tank World in Washington, D.C.

As a “scholar-intern” at one of Washington, D.C.'s major think-tanks, I officially belong on the lowest rung of the D.C. “foreign policy hackster” circuit . I have learn that in this town, money, brains, ideas (good and bad) and personality all come together to create the result which is the D.C. think-tank circuit. Here, ideas feed into government and shape the way Washington policymakers think. (For the purpose of this post, hacksters are those connected to Washington think-tanks. There is no good reason why I chose the word "hackster" to describe these people, except that the word "think-tanker" is way too clunky. "Hackster" also has a nice ring to it.)

To succeed inside the beltway, the average hackster needs to have mastered a combination of skills (or dark arts, depending on your point of view). Firstly, you need to be highly educated. The MA degree is often an entry-level requirement for a paid position, but in order to carry real clout, the aspiring hackster needs a PhD in history or political science. These dauntingly high educational requirements often mean that there is a high level of crossover from major U.S. universities into the hackster world. I have come to marvel at the influence which Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other top universities have on American decision making. Political science and history professors at these renowned institutions don’t just sit in an ivory tower, but rather go out and move the world.

Secondly, your successful hackster has an ego the size of planet Jupiter, and a personality to match. He (and sometimes she) must be able to make a good argument in order to get his message across. This requires a degree of self-importance, as the hackster needs to be convinced that he is correct no matter what, and back himself up with the appropriate statistics and historical facts. Of course, this means that no one changes his mind about anything, leading to extremely polarized, but highly entertaining, political debates around the water cooler, with every participant armed to the teeth with his own very credible set of arguments. In this town, self-promotion is the rule. You need to be charming, but forceful with your arguments in order to gain a wide audience and a name for yourself.

As a result, hacksters sort themselves into a pecking order. Those with the biggest egos, most experience, highest graduate degrees and best connections float towards the top. These are the personalities who appear in the headlines, and who have the President’s number on their cellphone contacts list. Not all hacksters achieve this exalted status, though, and there are hordes of mid-level hacksters running around who appear on CNN as “country experts” or “political commentators”. These people often hold day jobs as professors at D.C. universities where they recruit the next level of bright young hacksters, thus perpetuating the cycle. Not all know what they are talking about, but they sound like they do, which is the main thing. They are supported by an army of interns and research assistants who do all their research. These are the “coolies” of the hackster world who do all the fact-finding, fact-checking and ultimately much of the writing.

And what of the ideas which these hacksters generate? They ultimately feed into the foreign policy circuit of the United States by several means. One is by publishing reports which are given catchy titles such as “Political Change in Fiji: Between Democracy, Autocracy and Meritocracy”. These tomes are 250 pages long, cost twenty-five dollars each and are widely recommended as cures for insomnia. No one reads them. Another path is by publishing op-eds in the news or commenting on television. Again, there is a natural hierarchy of media outlets, with the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal occupying the top spot. These op-eds have usually gone through so many hands and are edited to death, such that one would think they were all written by the same committee.

The third, and by far most effective means of spreading the word, is by holding “book events”, “project launches” and “panel discussions”. These are never what they purport to be. Before the event begins, everyone makes a beeline for the free food. During the event, the audience listens politely and asks intelligent questions of the panel speakers (partly in order to sound clever and boost their hackstering credentials). After the event, though, is when the real work takes place. Hacksters, journalists, policy-makers, businessmen, congressmen, diplomats and everyone else in D.C. society mingle and mix. Business cards are exchanged, names are dropped and appointments are made for private discussions over drinks at the nearest overpriced bar or steakhouse. In this manner, policy peddlers exert their influence over the D.C. circuit. It is surprisingly personal and “intimate”.

Of course, all of this requires money. As much as a hackster may love the sound of his own voice, he is unwilling to air his views for nothing; hacksters need to eat, too. Hosting events costs money; there is no such thing as a free lunch. So who provides the cash? Various sources. Sometimes, it’s the Federal Government. Mostly, though, the money comes from either corporate or private donations. In the case of corporate donations, the companies providing the funds would usually want some “spin” on the research which the think-tank conducts. With private donors, the story is slightly different. Billionaires from Boston and New England create huge endowments to fund chairs in particular fields of studies, all promoting their particular point of view, of course. My think tank insists on keeping bipartisan, but there are other institutions out there (which shall remain unnamed) which set out to promote a particular agenda. These usually have some powerful backer behind them, who is connected to some particular industry or corporation. It is in this manner that the New England elites use the money they generate in New York and Connecticut for political influence in Washington, D.C..

The hackster system is a highly effective means of channeling intellectual ideas into government. It ensures that the best ideas which the United States provides do not remain stuck in universities. The nation’s top intellectuals are thus able to put their ideas to good use, and the intellectual fervor of Harvard and Stanford has an effect on K Street. The system can probably be related to the idea of “rule by philosophers”, with highly-educated individuals debating the future of the country. It is reassuring to understand that the country’s foreign policy is not influenced by brutes or blowhards, but rather by sophisticated, cultured intellectuals who know what they are talking about. Of course, there’s a downside to this rule by philosopher-kings. The D.C. community falls prey to the “inside the beltway” mentality, and the philosopher elites end up talking only to themselves and become increasingly divorced from reality and from the mood on the ground. They become vigorously wedded to their point of view and are unwilling to accept that there may be some good in listening to the other side. As a result, they perpetuate whatever myths or mistakes they make, and if their errors make their way into the highest echelons of power, then the result can be very dire indeed. Studying events from afar is no substitute for being on the ground, picking up the murmurings of the laobaixing.

Of course, there is no system which is not perfect, and for all its flaws, the hackster system achieves its fundamental goal, namely that ideas from the academic sphere flow into policy-making. Furthermore, the think-tank world is not the only source of influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is the State Department, military-to-military links, foreign-born naturalized Americans, the list goes on; these serve to “ground” U.S. foreign policy in reality, and bring the high-flown ideas of the hacksters down to earth. This, however, would be beyond the scope of this article to discuss…