Given their degree of in-house expertise, the State Department, according to the late Ambassador Philip Habib, Special Envoy to the Middle East, Central America, and the Philippines, does not depend heavily on the advice of think tank scholars. Similar sentiments have been expressed by Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to President Carter, who stated in an interview with this author that policy experts residing at think tanks have a limited effect at other federal government agencies involved in foreign policy, including the National Security Council. The practical fact of the matter is that unless you are working away day in and day out, you really can't generate too much influence as a so-called adviser. Rand, which has provided expertise to the Pentagon over the past five decades, might disagree with Brzezinski. Every successful policy idea, as many have claimed, has a hundred mothers and fathers.
Every bad idea is always an orphan.
The rather select group of think tanks closely linked to the Carter, Reagan, and Clinton administrations shared a great deal in common. All had established direct ties with these individuals well before they assumed power. Moreover, although each of these presidents was initially attracted to a group of think tanks because of their ideological leanings, their ability to maintain a strong presence in the policymaking community can be attributed to several factors. Most important, think tanks like Brookings, the Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation have succeeded because they have been able to combine the ability to offer policy- relevant expertise with a desire to market their findings. Only those think tanks that maintain a healthy balance between scholarship and aggressive salesmanship will remain well entrenched in the policy-making process.