Talk:Hudson Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a *conservative* think tank, right? Or is it? That's my impression from reading the list of people involved. Why is this not even mentioned?

It says right leaning right at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.49.9 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed that phrase in reaction to the removal of "left leaning" from another page. As there seems to be consensus here (and on google), I will return the phrase. Michael 134.84.96.142 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right - Left -- or Globalist?

I question the designation of "right-leaning" for this group. They are proponents of the "North American Union" (NAU) -- which the conservative right in the USA strongly opposes. Actually, the stated values of: "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security." -- this is neither "left" nor "right". But in fact, the "stated values" appear to be in conflict with what they are actually pushing.

See this white paper: Negotiating North America The Security and Prosperity Partnership from their own web site. They appear to actually be a "globalist" organization. Note they state (in the paper): "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America..." But in fact, the people of the USA never asked for such integration. (And IMO, for sure neither the people of Canada nor the USA want this.)

To follow along (from the link) we see: "The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States..." Really? Gosh, since when do we bypass Congress on this?

As it happens, US Congress Representative Virgil Goode has submitted Resolution 487 stating "that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

Further, US Congress Representative Duncan Hunter submitted an amendment to H.R. 3074. This amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, the amendment passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24. The House later approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included. Key point -- note the 362-63 vote. The US House is currently majority Democrat. So clearly -- on a bipartisan basis -- NEITHER party likes this NAU/SPP concept as pushed by the Hudson Institute.

So Congress is not so keen on this. BTW -- both Congressmen identified above are Republicans -- so I don't think that calling the Hudson Institute "right wing" flies. I strongly suggest that the proper term is corporatist -- and I am making that change now. SunSw0rd 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hudson philosophy

The Hudson is popularly associated with the neo-conservative movement and should be labeled as such. SunSw0rd recommends the term "corporatist". I disagree that that is the case. However, should that be accurate, it is content best represented in the article and not in the into paragraph, keeping with the practice of assigning a broad terminology. Also, I think "corporatist" is inappropriate because of the categorization of italian fascism as a corporatist ideology, which may lead to a negative association of the extreme right with what is a mainstream conservative research center. King of Corsairs (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit was reverted citing pejorative content - "neoconservative". The Hudson Institute is already on Wikipedia's list of neoconservative organizations. King of Corsairs (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the first seven sources I found that directly called the Hudosn Institute "neo-conservative". I passed over as many sources that called members of the Institute "neoconservative". Using the same newspaper archive I couldn't find any descriptions of it as "corporatist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that neo-con is a more popular label than corporatist -- but then corporatist is not a commonly used label. I applied it because it was more accurate than the previous description as "right-wing". The thing is that neo-con is viewed as some kind of ultra right wing perspective by the Left, and is used pejoratively -- but it is viewed as some kind of Trotskyite invasion of the Right by other conservatives. The problem with the neo-con label at all is that it is usually used by those who are defining an "enemy" -- whether those definers are on the Left or the Right. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute is given as an example of American conservative think tanks in Wikipedia: see United States Think Tanks:Conservative. All of the sources provided by earlier editors that had no links for verification in the first sentence have been moved to a section now called "Further reading"; they all need verification for relevance and reliability. The information provided in the lead paragraph by earlier editors actually comes from the organization itself. I have cleaned up the faulty citation format throughout and provided clean up related templates. The article needs further development and further clean up and citations used need to be reliable third-party published sources and not only information from the subject, which skews the article to the pov of the organization. --NYScholar (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)