The Leadership Institute

Salon’s Jeff Horwitz has a tremendous item in Salon today on the right-wing Leadership Institute, a training program founded by Republican activist Morton Blackwell (you might remember Blackwell as the Bush delegate who mocked injured troops at the GOP convention).

It’s a fascinating look at how young conservatives are being trained to win elections, generate media attention, and mount a conservative take-over of college campuses. The whole piece is great, but the anecdotal lead paragraphs really help set the stage for what today’s conservatives are learning to do and believe.

One recent Sunday, at Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, a dozen students meet for the second and final day of training in grass-roots youth politics. All are earnest, idealistic and as right wing as you can get. They take careful notes as instructor Paul Gourley teaches them how to rig a campus mock election.

It’s nothing illegal — no ballot stuffing necessary, even at the most liberal colleges. First you find a nonpartisan campus group to sponsor the election, so you can’t be accused of cheating. Next, volunteer to organize the thing. College students are lazy, and they’ll probably let you. Always keep in mind that a rigged mock election is all about location, location, location.

“Can anyone tell me,” asks Gourley, a veteran mock electioneer, “why you don’t want the polling place in the cafeteria?”

Stephen, a shy antiabortion activist sitting toward the rear of the class, raises his hand: “Because you want to suppress the vote?”

“Stephen has the right answer!” Gourley exclaims, tossing Stephen his prize, a copy of Robert Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gomorrah.”

This is the same “institute” that’s trained Karl Rove, Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and tens of thousands of right-wing activists few have ever heard of. The “school” has millions of dollars, a track record of success, and a twisted conservative agenda. (Oddly enough, it also has a tax-exempt status.)

But the Leadership Institute’s real focus, from now on, is converting college campuses.

For most of its 25-year history, it has focused on grooming students to work in conservative politics; it’s now increasingly devoting its efforts to making campuses more conservative places. Through its Campus Leadership Program, the institute is leading a growing effort to found and support a national network of conservative student groups and publications capable of permanently altering the intellectual and social environment of universities to conservatives’ advantage. That goal alone is a stark rejection of the standard conservative complaint that post-Vietnam War higher education is not just grossly liberal, but irredeemably so. Already, the program has shown considerable success. Asked about his campus initiative, Blackwell simply says, “You’re talking about the major project for the rest of my life.”

In the wake of the 2004 election, some progressive groups have been working to reinforce their positions on campus. Last February, the Center for American Progress launched Campus Progress, a student activism support center, to combat what Halperin describes as “30 years of effective organizing” by conservative groups like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Young Americans for Freedom, and of course, the Leadership Institute. But Blackwell is unfazed by the competition. “If they asked me, which they haven’t, I could let them know that it’s a lot harder than it appeared on the surface,” he told me. “You’ve got to work years before you see any results.”

It makes sense that this would be the focus for activists like Blackwell. Last November, Bush beat John Kerry in every age group — except 18-to-29-year-olds where Kerry beat Bush 54% to 45% (the widest margin of any of the four age groups). Making headway on campuses will help the right narrow this gap.

Would now be a good time to ask why the left doesn’t have something like the Leadership Institute for our side?

The Left definitely should have something to offer.

But everyone trying to organize college students is facing an horrendous uphill climb. Usually college students (and others their age) are much too distracted by other things. From a politican’s point of view, they are mostly a “silent generation”. Even when they got radicalized in the Vietnam era, very little of that translated into polling-booth reality. Virtually all of it collapsed the instant the draft shifted to a lottery.

One persistant problem is the Sisyphus perplex: no matter how much effort you (Right or Left) put into organizing, you have to do it all over again every year thereafter due to the rapid turnover.

After long experience in this I think the Left would be better advised to concentrate their campus efforts on those who already show at least a peripheral interest (Young Democrats, poli sci majors, pre-law, debate, journalism, e.g.).

  • Even with some kind of group like this, the left will have a hard time overcoming this type of thing.

    These guys are selling a philosophy of “might makes right,” “the end justifies the means,” and “you don’t have to be ‘tolerant’ of things you don’t like”. It’s a message of supreme selfishness that appeals to a generation of kids who have never wanted anything they couldn’t get. Add to that the idea that “God” is on the side of those espousing this & you’ve got a winner of a message.

    What’s the left got? “Be respectful of others,” “drive a smaller, fuel-efficient car,” “help out people in need”?

    I’m afraid we’re going to need some kind of meltdown in this country before people understand that we’ll get a lot further by thinking of something other than ourselves.

  • The labor professors and the socially-liberal professors would kill each other.

  • It is almost impossible to believe that this group is tax exempt. To quote our carpet bagger “sometimes I just can’t hide my contempt for these people”. But I guess it is easier to win by cheating and no matter how many times they get caught, only about 5% of people care and those vote against these jackasses anyway.

  • “It’s a message of supreme selfishness that appeals to a generation of kids who have never wanted anything they couldn’t get.”

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

  • What’s the left got? “Be respectful of others,â€? “drive a smaller, fuel-efficient car,â€? “help out people in needâ€??

    Yeah, playing “these rotten kids today” is a sure-fire way to get them on your side…

    What’s the left got? “We can make the world a better place,” “government should serve the common good, not the rich and powerful,” “you should be able to live your life as you choose, free from the restrictions of narrow-minded moralizers,” just for starters. Those are a lot more appealing to most college students I know than “supreme selfishness” and “God is on our side.”

  • This article should be of interest to those concerned about this subject.

    Hoping to Make Policy Waves, and Graduate, Too
    By MICHAEL FALCONE

    STANFORD, Calif. – Most of the newly minted research fellows at one of the newest public policy institutions in the country have yet to be published in a scholarly journal or to present a paper at an academic conference. Most do not even have a bachelor’s degree.

    But the Stanford University students who recently founded the Roosevelt Institution, billed as the nation’s first student-run policy research group, say the intellectual capital of college students is an untapped resource.

    The goal of the Roosevelt Institution, organizers say, is to bring the ideas of students to the attention of politicians, policy makers and the news media rather than let them “end up in a professor’s filing cabinet.” Officially, Roosevelt is nonpartisan, but its philosophy tends to be liberal.

    Though the organization is barely four months old, it could quickly become one of the largest policy research groups in the country, said Quinn Wilhelmi, 20, a Stanford sophomore from Eugene, Ore., and the institution’s executive director.

    “Every college campus is a think tank, and we already have 15 million potential members,” said Mr. Wilhelmi, a religious studies major. “All we’re doing is organizing those existing voices and creating a mechanism by which students are given a part in the policy process.”

    The institution has already attracted hundreds of members at Stanford and is expanding nationally. Membership is free and does not require submission of a paper. New branches are popping up at 30 other universities across the country, and students at Yale, Columbia and Middlebury are among the first to organize their own Roosevelt Institution chapters based on the Stanford model.

    The groups are linking up through the institution’s Web site, rooseveltinstitution.org.

    Roosevelt’s president, Kai Stinchcombe, 22, said disappointment at the outcome of the 2004 election was the catalyst for the institution’s founding. Mr. Stinchcombe, a political science doctoral student from Evanston, Ill., with a background in political activism, said a policy group of students seemed like something that should already exist but did not.

    “Everybody asks students for energy, nobody asks them for ideas,” he said. “The election showed us that we needed an establishment to generate progressive ideas.”

    Named for Presidents Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt, the group is organized around more than a dozen policy committees, focusing on issues like international development and progressive religious perspectives.

    The students were considering a “Hoover Watch” committee to provide a counterweight to Stanford’s conservative-leaning policy group, the Hoover Institution, but have backed off. Instead, they have been seeking advice from its staff and fellows. Within the next few months, the organization plans to publish several thousand copies of a 100- to-200-page journal of student policy research, The Roosevelt Review, to be distributed to policy researchers, lawmakers and journalists.

    The Stanford chapter recently posted its first policy papers on the institution’s Web site, including a review of religion-based initiatives, the Bush program that makes it easier for religious groups to get government money for social programs. In April, Roosevelt fellows at Yale presented the mayor and Board of Aldermen of New Haven with a report examining the impact of a proposed living-wage law on the city.

    Organizers say interest in the institution has grown faster than they anticipated. But for all of its promise, even the group’s leaders acknowledge the challenges.

    The institution lacks a steady source of financing; it has been surviving on small private donations collected on its Web site and at a few house parties the students have held on campus. Mr. Stinchcombe and Mr. Wilhelmi say they hope to court larger donors, but in the meantime they have run up large balances on their credit cards to keep the institution running.

    Even if the students prove to be successful fund-raisers, producing first-rate research and managing a multicampus policy institution could overwhelm the most involved Roosevelt fellows, who also have to find time for their studies.

    Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that while he supported the idea of a student policy research institute, the Roosevelt Institution would eventually need a permanent staff.

    “Anything that might get young people more involved in public affairs and politics is a good thing,” Mr. Diamond said. “But it’s always difficult for students to make something like this work because they’re only here for a few years and then they go on. The problem of continuity is enormous.”

    The Roosevelt Institution’s fellows are the kind of students who spend the summer volunteering with genocide survivors in Rwanda or studying international trade policy at the World Bank in Brazil. This summer, Roosevelt leaders plan to shop The Roosevelt Review around Washington, and Mr. Wilhelmi says he is confident the students will find an audience for their research. “We will read it out loud on Capitol Hill if we have to,” he said.

    They also have an impressive list of advisers that includes William J. Perry, a former defense secretary who is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Steve Westly, the California state controller; and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, a granddaughter of President Franklin Roosevelt.

    As with other entrepreneurial projects that started near Stanford, the Roosevelt Institution might exceed expectations, said Mr. Westly, a former eBay executive.

    “Whether they will end up being as influential as a place like the Brookings Institution, I don’t know,” said Mr. Westly, a likely candidate for governor of California in 2006. “But when I started at eBay, no one thought we would have a larger market cap than Ford and G.M. either.”

    The question of influence is central to the Roosevelt Institution’s future. Without an infusion of cash and a steady stream of good ideas, Mr. Diamond said the student group was unlikely to have the clout of some of the country’s better-known research organizations, like the Hoover Institution.

    Mr. Wilhelmi, who wants to see a branch of the Roosevelt Institution in every state, says he is sure his organization has the potential for an impact. And, when it comes to comparisons between the student fellows and those at Roosevelt’s more venerable neighbor at Stanford, Mr. Wilhelmi shows no sign of an inferiority complex.

    “People ask me, ‘How can you say that you’re going to be as brilliant as the Hoover Institution when Hoover has five Nobel laureates?’ ” he said. “Well, we have at least that many Nobel laureates in our group; they just haven’t been awarded the prize yet.”

  • Start sending military recruiters there to snatch up those warm bodies. I’m sure they will be happy to go when they find out there’s a need.

  • Even if the current generation of college students were as selfish as some seem to think (which I dispute – see below), it is still possible to frame political appeals in a language which makes sense to them. Talk about the importance of investing in “human capital” (e.g., education, health) so that what we have isn’t wasted in favor of private greed. Douglas Massey’s new Return of the “L” Word: A Liberal Vision for the New Century is full of advice like this.

    It has been my experience on campus that many students seem self-centered, even rude, and are simply unaware of it. When I was growing up larger families had one TV (or radio), one telephone, one record player, one car; kids shared rooms. The result was that everyone growing up had learn to share, connive, “take the role of the other”, negotiate, intrigue, conspire and bargain with their siblings and parents. Most of today’s college students grew up in their own room, with their own entertainment center, currently walk around plugged in to their iPod or cell phone, own their own car, etc. Most have been exposed to much more “diversity” than we were, but they are really much more isolated.

    Many do push into an elevator before letting others off. If you point it out to them they’re so remorseful you feel bad for having brought it up. If anything, I think they’re kinder and more other-concerned and sensitive than they were when I went to school. Once anyone bothers to inform them. On that line, I’ve seen many very hardworking recruiters for Jesus on campus, very very few for the Democratic Party.

  • I’d like to interject about how it’s not always the kids failing the system, but older folk manipulating the system to shut out the kids. Take for example the situation in Williamsburg, VA last year. A number of students at the local university, the College of William and Mary, wanted to involve themselves in local politics. They gathered together to register to vote and a couple even gathered signatures so they could run for city council. The Council, instead of welcoming the input from a block of people that made up somewhere between a quarter and a half of the local population for three fourths of the year, they reclassified the students as “temporary residents” and denied their registration attempts. It’s not very encouraging when young people actually try to get involved only to have the door slammed in their faces.

  • I’m amazed they could get away with that. The Census Bureau classifies you as resident where you spend over 50% of the year. Thus college students are resident where they go to college, not where their folks live.

  • I think the real goal is to identify the next Karl Roves and get them started down the dark path early on. Groom them in college and then get them involved with the real thing once they graduate. Kind of like a major league baseball-style farm program for the next generation of right-wing extremist organizers who will pick up where the current crop leaves off.

    A cancerous, self-perpetuating cauldron of slime….darned clever, those wealthy dogma-driven wingnuts.

  • CONservatism == Same Shit, Different Day

    Svimvea, Eveningvea, …

    Put up some variations of that around campus. The kids will get it. Or, just Jan LaRue’s face …

    P.S. Ohio youth vote was disenfranchised.

  • Comments are closed.