This article appeared at JohnLocke.org January 8, 2025. We are grateful to reproduce it here with permsission.

As we begin a new year, it is worth reflecting on the institutions that shape public policy in America — and the principles that ought to guide them. For the John Locke Foundation, that reflection is especially fitting. Since opening its doors in February 1990, Locke has worked to define and defend the proper role of a nonprofit research institute in a free society. Nonprofit think tanks occupy a distinctive place in our civic life, serving as sources of ideas and analysis rather than instruments of political power — a role that is often misunderstood and, at times, unfairly caricatured.

At their best, think tanks are neither political parties nor campaign arms. They are not cheerleaders for candidates, nor are they instruments for short-term electoral advantage. Instead, principled think tanks serve as guides: for lawmakers seeking sound policy grounded in ideas, evidence, and experience, and for citizens striving to understand how public policy affects their lives and their communities.

Ideas before politics

The defining characteristic of a serious think tank is its commitment to ideas that precede politics. That commitment is embedded in the John Locke Foundation’s identity, named for John Locke (1632–1704), the English philosopher whose writings profoundly influenced Thomas Jefferson and the other American Founders. Locke’s ideas about natural rights, limited government, and consent of the governed remain foundational to the American experiment — and to our work today.

At the John Locke Foundation, our work is rooted in a worldview that values individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility. Our vision is of a North Carolina in which liberty and limited, constitutional government are the cornerstones of society, so that individuals, families, and institutions can freely shape their own destinies. Those principles inform our analysis of public policy, whether the issue is education, health care, taxation, regulation, or energy.

This approach necessarily distinguishes a think tank from a political organization. Political parties exist to win elections. We know this because party platforms are not fixed statements of enduring principle, but living documents that can — and often do — change every two or four years in response to shifting electoral incentives. Candidates exist to assemble coalitions large enough to govern. Think tanks exist to ask a different set of questions: What policies best advance human flourishing? What role should government play — and what role should it not play? What do economic reality, empirical evidence, and constitutional limits tell us about proposed reforms?

When ideas come first, policy positions follow logically, even when they are inconvenient.

A guide for lawmakers

Elected officials face immense pressure. They must respond to constituents, donors, interest groups, media narratives, and party leadership — often simultaneously. In that environment, a nonprofit think tank can play an essential role by slowing the conversation down and re-centering it on first principles.

A think tank’s obligation is not to tell lawmakers what they want to hear, but to help them understand the consequences of their choices. That means providing rigorous research, clear explanations, and principled critiques — whether the policy proposal originates on the left or the right.

Good lawmakers value this role. They understand that governing requires more than slogans and talking points. It requires a decision-making framework that remains stable even as political winds shift.

Educating the public

Think tanks also serve a broader audience: the public itself. From its earliest days, the John Locke Foundation has understood education to be central to its mission — not education in the service of power, but education in the service of self-government. In a self-governing society, citizens cannot delegate all responsibility for understanding public policy to elected officials. They must be equipped with the knowledge and context necessary to evaluate claims, weigh tradeoffs, and hold leaders accountable.

Education, in this sense, is not indoctrination. As a 501(c)(3) research institute — legally prohibited from endorsing candidates or engaging in partisan campaign activity — the John Locke Foundation is structured to inform public debate rather than participate in electoral politics. Supported by thousands of individuals, foundations, and corporations — and accepting neither government funds nor contributions intended to influence its conclusions — Locke is designed to protect its independence and credibility. It is the presentation of arguments, data, and principles in a way that respects the audience’s intelligence. A think tank should make complex issues accessible without diluting their substance — and should never confuse persuasion with partisanship.

Precisely because educating the public shapes how citizens understand policy, it also exposes think tanks to a persistent temptation: to trade principled analysis for partisan advantage in the hope of greater reach or influence.

The temptation of partisanship

Many critics assume that think tanks are merely extensions of political parties, engaged in electioneering under the guise of research. That assumption misunderstands both the legal obligations and the moral purpose of organizations like the John Locke Foundation. Some organizations may fit that description. But think tanks that hold fast to principles cannot — and should not.

Partisanship asks only one question: Does this help my side win?

Principled analysis asks a harder one: Is this policy right — measured against enduring principles and evidence rather than short-term political advantage?

Those questions often diverge.

This divergence is becoming increasingly visible in today’s political landscape. On the left, the Democratic Party and its allied policymakers have moved steadily toward greater government control, higher spending, and expansive regulatory schemes that crowd out private initiative and individual choice. On the right, the Republican Party has, in many cases, retreated from its historic defense of free markets, embracing protectionism, industrial policy, and government intervention justified in the name of national interest or cultural grievance.

A principled think tank cannot simply adjust its views to match these shifts. If it does, it ceases to be a think tank and becomes a faction.

Standing apart — even when it’s uncomfortable

Standing apart from prevailing political winds is rarely cost-free and often requires courage. A think tank that drifts too far from the realities of the political environment risks diminishing its influence — and without influence, it cannot fulfill its purpose in the public policy process. This tension can be especially acute in fundraising, where donors, like politicians, may understandably be drawn to alignment with the momentum of the moment — but where intellectual independence is most essential.

At the same time, a think tank that becomes too closely attached to political winds risks something far more serious: forfeiting its reason for being. When analysis bends to accommodate party priorities or short-term political advantage, principles give way to expediency. In that moment, a think tank ceases to guide policy and instead follows it.

Navigating this balance — remaining relevant without becoming partisan, influential without becoming captive — is a defining obligation of serious policy institutions. But it is precisely this challenge that justifies a think tank’s existence.

A nonprofit think tank earns public trust not by aligning with power, but by maintaining intellectual independence from it. That independence allows it to critique bad ideas no matter who proposes them — and to support good ideas no matter how politically inconvenient they may be.

The long view

Public policy is a marathon, not a sprint. This reality holds for think tanks operating at both the national and state levels, where enduring ideas matter far more than transient political advantage. For more than three decades, the John Locke Foundation has taken the long view — working to become North Carolina’s most influential force for sound public policy so that North Carolinians can flourish in a free and prosperous society. Election cycles come and go. Party platforms evolve. Political coalitions realign. Principles, if they are sound, endure.

Over time, this commitment to ideas before politics has helped shape real policy progress in North Carolina — not through sudden victories or partisan alignment, but through steady influence on the terms of debate. Long before reform became politically fashionable, the John Locke Foundation advanced the case for broad-based tax reform grounded in growth and competitiveness, for energy policies that respect economic reality and consumer choice rather than centralized planning, and for school choice as an expression of both parental authority and educational opportunity. These reforms did not emerge fully formed, nor can they be credited to any single institution. But they reflect the cumulative impact of principled analysis sustained across decades, often well in advance of legislative action.

The role of a nonprofit think tank is to keep those principles in view — to remind lawmakers and citizens alike that policy choices have consequences, that government action involves tradeoffs, and that liberty and prosperity are not accidents but achievements that require constant defense.

As we look ahead to the challenges of 2026 and beyond, the need for principled, independent voices in public policy has never been greater. Think tanks that understand their proper role will resist the temptation to become political weapons and instead remain what the public requires them to be: guides grounded in ideas, committed to truth, and accountable to principles rather than parties.

That is the role we strive to play — and the role our civic culture still desperately needs.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.