Second Opinions: Contrasting Conservative Plans

IN DEFENDING their various research and publication activities, conservative writers and activists like to cite Richard Weaver’s most famous insight: “Ideas have consequences.” But in reality, no matter how eloquent the article or comprehensive the study, the key to implementing policy is access to politicians. Critics write reviews, journalists write columns, donors write checks—but only lawmakers write laws.

In the case of health-care reform, however, donors to conservative groups are definitely getting their money’s worth. The two major philosophical challenges to the Clinton health plan on Capitol Hill were essentially written by conservative think-tankers. They are the Nickles-Hatch—Mack Consumer Choice Plan, based on work by Stuart Butler & Co. at the Heritage Foundation, and Phil Gramm’s reform plan, based on work by John Goodman for the Cato Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis. In both cases, conservative scholars with years of experience in the field have had the opportunity to translate their ideas directly into legislation (something the Jackson Hole Group wishes it had enjoyed with Hillary Clinton’s task force).

About the Author

John Hood

John Hood is president of the John William Pope Foundation, a North Carolina-based grantmaker, and co-founder of Freedom Conservatism.

Featured Tags

IN DEFENDING their various research and publication activities, conservative writers and activists like to cite Richard Weaver’s most famous insight: “Ideas have consequences.” But in reality, no matter how eloquent the article or comprehensive the study, the key to implementing policy is access to politicians. Critics write reviews, journalists write columns, donors write checks—but only lawmakers write laws.

In the case of health-care reform, however, donors to conservative groups are definitely getting their money’s worth. The two major philosophical challenges to the Clinton health plan on Capitol Hill were essentially written by conservative think-tankers. They are the Nickles-Hatch—Mack Consumer Choice Plan, based on work by Stuart Butler & Co. at the Heritage Foundation, and Phil Gramm’s reform plan, based on work by John Goodman for the Cato Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis. In both cases, conservative scholars with years of experience in the field have had the opportunity to translate their ideas directly into legislation (something the Jackson Hole Group wishes it had enjoyed with Hillary Clinton’s task force).