Meaning: The quote by Frank Luntz, a prominent political consultant and pollster, sheds light on the role of think tanks in shaping the communication strategies of the Republican party. Luntz's assertion that think tanks are the "single worst, most undisciplined example of communication" suggests a critical viewpoint on the messaging and communication techniques employed by these organizations.

Think tanks are institutions that conduct research and provide analysis and recommendations on a wide range of policy issues. They often serve as sources of expertise and information for policymakers, political leaders, and the public. In the context of political communication, think tanks play a significant role in formulating and disseminating messages that align with the policy priorities and ideological positions of the party or organization they represent.

Luntz's statement implies that the messaging crafted by think tanks, particularly those aligned with the Republican party, lacks coherence and discipline. This criticism raises questions about the effectiveness and impact of the communication strategies developed by these institutions. It suggests that despite their intellectual and analytical capabilities, think tanks may fall short in delivering persuasive and strategic messaging that resonates with the public and advances the party's agenda.

One interpretation of Luntz's remark is that the messaging emanating from think tanks may suffer from a lack of focus, consistency, and clarity. In a political context, effective communication is essential for shaping public opinion, mobilizing support, and influencing policy outcomes. If the messages generated by think tanks are indeed undisciplined, it could hinder the party's ability to convey its policy proposals and values in a compelling manner.

Furthermore, Luntz's characterization of think tanks' communication as the "single worst" example suggests a high level of discontent with the quality and impact of their messaging. This assessment raises broader questions about the role of expert-driven communication in contemporary politics and the extent to which it effectively engages and persuades the public.

It is important to note that Luntz's perspective reflects his own experiences and observations within the realm of political communication. As a seasoned political consultant known for his work in language and messaging, Luntz is likely to have encountered various approaches to crafting and disseminating political messages, including those originating from think tanks.

In the broader context of political discourse, the role of think tanks in shaping public opinion and policy debates is a subject of ongoing scrutiny and debate. While these institutions are often regarded as sources of expertise and policy analysis, questions about their influence, transparency, and partisan leanings have been raised by critics and scholars.

In conclusion, Frank Luntz's critique of think tanks' communication highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in shaping effective political messaging. The quote invites reflection on the role of expert-driven communication in political discourse and the significance of disciplined and coherent messaging in shaping public opinion and policy outcomes. While the specific context and examples behind Luntz's assertion are not provided, his remarks prompt a critical examination of the role and impact of think tanks in shaping political communication.