I hope you'll check out the full piece, and if you're interested to you can read more about the book here:

www.pennpress.org/978151282802...

This poses problems for polarization, representation, and governance. Through their subsidies, ideologically and narrowly motivated PROs (re)enforce polarized views, move policy toward their own ends, and prevent cross-party dialogue and compromise.

First, the main takeaway: many policy research organizations (PROs) today are partisan policy demanders who subsidize the policymaking efforts of their partisan allies, not only thru their research but also direct political advocacy. See, for example, Heritage and CAP.

Probably not exactly what you’re after, but on voteview you can search by member name and see which ideological bin they fall into relative to party/chamber. My students had fun with it yesterday.

Congrats! Well-deserved

Very cool stuff! I find similar results when I look at more traditional forms of engagement (think tank hiring and event participant patterns) in my book. Love the idea of podcasts as data. Looking forward to seeing more!

Really cool stuff. Love when there’s a paper to cite for something I’ve long thought to be true

Awesome, thanks!

Love this idea. Any idea how to implement in R? Wasn’t able to find much with a quick look

“No other president would’ve done it” is the truest thing he’s ever said

I agree. But also worth noting that it’s actually a large shift in today’s political terrain

Really interesting. Is there a paper associated with this?

Don’t forget Willy!

The obsession with tariffs actually makes a lot more sense if this was the ultimate goal

Why can’t we have nice things (planned cap increases that don’t get derailed by pandemics or idiotic policies)?