Both the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation attempt to appeal to all strands of the conservative alliance and to unify and mobilize lawyers for conservative and libertarian causes. Heritage pushes lawyers (and other advocates) to find ways to contribute to the mutual success of the organizations they serve. The Federalist Society does not directly advocate cooperation on policy objectives, but it indirectly contributes toward that goal by engaging conservatives and libertarians in conversation and debate.
Do these organizations help to integrate the conservative coalition? If so, how effective are they?
The lawyers I interviewed for my book offered mixed assessments. They suggested that these organizations reach more deeply into some strands of the coalition than others. A religious conservative reported that Heritage meetings draw fewer social conservatives than libertarians. More than half of the interviewed lawyers said that they were active in the Federalist Society, but lawyers associated with libertarian and mediator organizations were much more likely than social conservatives or business advocates to participate.
On the other hand, an analysis of the communication network of the interviewed lawyers lends support to the idea that those organizations promote communication across constituencies. The network was divided by constituency, with lawyers in distinct parts of the network communicating very little with each other. In the core of the network, however, were seven lawyers who communicated with many other lawyers. Their central position in the network suggested they might help to link divided constituencies. All lawyers in the core were active participants in the Federalist Society. Although I did not have complete data about participation in Heritage Foundation meetings, four lawyers in the core indicated that they regularly participated in those meetings as well.
Is it true, as one lawyer told me, that the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society serve as the “crossroads of the conservative movement”? To what extent do they manage to promote understanding and cooperation within the coalition?
how did you construct your 'sample'.
My impression of the Federalist Society is that is it more equally divided across a range of interests on the right than your nose counting seems to indicate.
It certainly has a high degree of libertarian and elite mediator participation, but that is relative to the degree to which you find especially the former represented in say scholarly legal discussion, the ABA or other vaguely comparable venues.
But the FS is, at root, a grassroots movement of lawyers challenging the hegemony of the ABA - not directly in every facet of what the ABA does but across a fair range of what can be seen to be a professional organization. And it is pretty easy to join leadership and planning of various practice groups or state chapters regardless of one's position on that interest spectrum.
So I find the audiences pretty varied across the categories you have laid out, both in areas of vocational and avocational interest, region of resident (obviously DC folks are going to predominate at a DC meeting but the grunt level , but go to a chapter meeting or student gathering not in the DC area).
I don't know as much about Heritage's efforts at coalescing legal resources for conservative causes, but I wonder about the characterization of the federalist society.
Brian
Heritage has hosted all of my Supreme Court moots, and done so very well. In that sense, they brought together lawyers that I would not have either thought would be interested or had access to. That resulted in my having to confront parts of the issue that I would rather not have, but doing so in a way which probably helped not only my argument, but the Court's understanding of the cases as well. These lawyers did represent many different constituencies. But . . . they weren't all conservatives. Several were quite liberal, and many were not "movement" conservatives (a distinction which used to hold a great deal of significance). It's not so much an ideological effort, as an intellectual and professional effort. Not sure how to answer whether it helps integrate the conservative coalition.
Plus, having dealt with Heritage directly in many ways for decades, I'm not sure that I would say that they are a "cross-roads of the conservative movement." Heritage, like all established organizations, has its own image; rightly or not, Heritage is viewed as well-off, interested in its own image and effectiveness, and run by and for a specific, though fairly broad, group of leaders. Heritage used to be thought of as radical, in the Reagan years, but I believe it's image now is more of an "establishment" entity.
Similarly with the Fed Soc, although to a much smaller degree. At least in D.C., Fed Soc has always been more than a bit of a social club. You don't really go there to hear the speakers; you go there to schmooze. People come into town and that's a nice excuse to visit with old buds. But again, like Heritage, you are almost guaranteed to hear some non-conservative views, and probably well-stated and supported as well. They don't get a lot of partisan hacks reading talking points. So it might be considered more a "cross-roads" in the sense that lots of people cross paths, but these are people who are probably crossing paths anyway. Not sure if that qualifies as "integrating."
I think there might be a fruitful inquiry here, but I'm kind of wondering whether the terms have been defined in a way which limits the responses. You really have to define the "constituencies" before you can analyze whether they're divided, and what forces are at work. I'm not sure that I know what constituencies are being asked about. Especially in light of the earlier thread on who were "major players."
Over the years I have discerned a distinct ascendence of libertarian views, at least as expressed in meetings. (The old joke is that the libertarians have all the best ideas/lines.) I attribute this partly to more new lawyers coming out of law schools with libertarian views, partly to social conservatives not being as motivated toward reform advocacy, and partly to some conservatives becoming more libertarian as they grow wiser.
But there are many other organizations that deserve mention in the mix. Here is a sample, with apologies for omissions:
* Cato Institute
* Institute for Justice
* Bill of Rights Institute
* Judicial Watch
* Rutherford Institute
* Independent Institute
* American Enterprise Institute
And others listed on our Organizations page.
It should be noted that persons with libertarian views tend to dominate online fora like this one, and there to propagate their views further. I attribute this partly to a libertarian bias on the part of persons with computer skills.
I also note that since I went online in 1989, my own views have not changed much, but have been getting steadily better reception with the passage of time as people encounter more people with similar views and think about them more. I even get a lot of people who say, "I used to think you were a whacko but now I think you're right."
Be warned. You too may come to see the merits of what I write.
Because of this, it does not surprise me that there wouldn't be a great deal of cross pollenation.
Define "conservative" -- religious, social, political, fiscal, etc.
Better to ask "How effective are these organizations at herding cats?"
Is this really the litmus test you want to apply? No matter how diligent you are in defending private property rights and opposing government intervention, you can't be on the "right" unless you agree that governmental police power allows the criminalization of sodomy? I think there's a bigger tent on the right than that.
It seems a significant raison d'etre of the book is to explain how the libertarian, conservative and business wings of the right are (or are not) reconciled. You are wrong to say that IJ cannot be considered of the "right". Forgetting all the rock solid free market and property rights work that IJ does that makes them card carrying members of the righ, you don't need to be on the left to be revolted by the government's interest in the bedroom.
BZ
I wasn't aware that Heritage hosted moot courts, but it makes sense. I've only been to one - for Del Monte Dunes - and I think the builder's association hosted that. Obviously they have some great legal guys in house as well. There are a lot of programs there I would attend if I were in D.C., but obviously they haven't made enough invitations to D.B. They are going to be modestly less libertarian friendly than the Federalist Society but I don't find them hard to get along with.
DB
You are quite right that CATO and AEI, for the libertarian and business wings respectively, do a good job of integrating legal and policy questions and fostering discourse. To an extent Heritage probably fills that gap for the conservative/order/homeland defense crowd.
OK
can I get a prescription.
Brian
so one would think. However, the Institute for Justice caught quite a bit of flack from the right at the time. Being anti-gay is an highly important part of the conservative creed, principally because the right today is so dominated by the religious right.
Forget the left-right paradigm. The Nolan Chart provides a better way to characterize political positions, amnd even it is simplistic.
Some of you might be amused by reading my blog report on "Contrasting Conferences" I attended.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.