In Defense of Heritage Action

After a week of speculation and rumor, word came last week that the Board of Trustees of the Heritage Foundation had sought and received the resignation of Foundation President Jim DeMint, a former U.S. senator from South Carolina.

I don’t have any affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, or any sources on the inside. I don’t know how much of the stories of mismanagement and internal discontent are true. But I do know one thing, based entirely on my perspective as a conservative looking in at the drama and debate: The arguments from the Wall Street Journal and others that the organization’s foray into political activism—led by DeMint, the affiliated group Heritage Action, and the news outlet The Daily Signal—was a mistake, are just plain wrong.

Put simply, the Heritage Foundation formulates and articulates conservative policy proposals and ideas. That was the primary purpose for its founding in a nutshell, and it is a mission it still excels at. Yet formulating ideas is pointless if those ideas are never used, or fought for. And depending on other organizations, or the media, to pick up on certain ideas and push for them is a big gamble to take. Most ordinary voters will not peruse the latest research from the Heritage Foundation—or any other think tank—find those ideas they like most, and begin a grassroots campaign for their adoption by Congress.

Which is where Heritage Action, and The Daily Signal, comes in, as a way for grassroots activists to get fired up about the proposals being put forward by the mainline Heritage Foundation, and as motivators for those ideas to actually be put into action. Heritage Action—and its legislative scorecard, grading members of Congress on their effectiveness—serves to bridge the gap between the ivory-tower nature of the think tank and the political realities of governing, and is a valuable tool in adopting policies developed by scholars and researchers at the Foundation.