What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Losing Reagan's Legacy

December 22, 2010, 9:01 PM

When 71 senators to voted to ratify New START it was a huge victory for Obama and the Democrats. The vote would normally have been a victory for Republicans. The original START—which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty—was one of Ronald Reagan’s signature achievements. Ultimately signed by George H.W. Bush a few months after the fall of the Soviet Union, the treaty limited the size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and played a key role in getting the post-Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to disarm. And it gave us the ability to monitor the Russian weapons program. It put in to practice Reagan’s belief that we should  “trust, but verify.”

But Republicans opposed New START in large numbers. The new treaty, which became necessary when the original START expired this year, will not only allow us to continue monitoring the Russian nuclear weapons program, but will help to isolate the Iranian and North Korean weapons programs. Republican leaders argued that the new treaty concedes too much, and will limit our ability to defend ourselves against nuclear attacks. But while you can always negotiate a better treaty, as Fred Kaplan showsthese objections are almost completely groundless—which is why both Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and every living former Republican Secretary of State has endorsed the treaty. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, says Republican opposition to the treaty is “baffling.”

The truth was that most of the opposition to the treaty wasn’t serious, but was part of a larger strategy to keep Democrats from accomplishing anything during the lame duck session of Congress. Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), the key Republican on nuclear weapons policy, announced that he opposed the treaty in spite of getting the Obama administration to agree to modernize the country's nuclear arsenal on the grounds the administration wasn’t “committed in the heart” to modernization. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to put off the vote because, he said, senators weren’t “thoroughly familiar” with the treaty—even though the 17 page document has been available since April. And Kyl complained that even asking senators to work this week disrespected “one of the two holiest holidays for Christians and the families of all the Senate,” prompting Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to respond that “The question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday. The question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare.”

In the end, just 11 Republicans joined with Democrats to ratify the treaty. As Adam Serwer writes, Republican obstructionism turned what ought to have been a bipartisan accomplishment that invoked one of Reagan’s great foreign policy successes into a victory for Obama in the face or Republican opposition.

That’s the danger of obstructionism. Opposing almost everything in Congress over the last two years—and even portraying a health care bill based on Mitt Romney’s as a liberal “monstrosity”—allowed Republicans to make the Democrats seem partisan and ineffective. Although it was one of the most productive Congresses in decades, the idea that Democrats couldn’t get anything done helped Republicans win a huge victory in the midterm elections. But by opposing everything Republicans also allowed the Democrats to take the lead on—and get credit for—what would otherwise be uncontroversial Republican achievements.


Losing Reagan's Legacy

Newsletter: Share: