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

The Founding Fathers On Mitt Romney

March 6, 2012, 12:00 AM

In a Big Think interview from 2007, Romney cites the founding fathers as some of his role models. But what would the founding fathers think of some of Romney’s ideas? Here we take a look some of the clips from that interview and see whether George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might have agreed with 2007 Romney on certain issues. 

Issue 1: The Two Party System

In his famous farewell address in 1796, George Washington wrote, “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Here Romney says that multiple parties would lead to a minority party's wielding a disproportionate amount of power in the electoral process. Instead, he believes the “Republican tent needs to be big enough to encompass a majority of the people of this great country.”

Washington, on the other hand, believed parties to be a consolidation of the vices of the masses, and a single, giant GOP tent might just be a perfect example of that (not that a single, giant Democratic tent would be any more pleasant). Let’s also not forget the obvious dangers of a single majority party.

Issue 2: Morality in Government

In a letter to Thomas Law in 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice."

Jefferson was a Deist and did not believe in a material God (although he did refer to himself as Christian in letters to Benjamin Rush), however even he recognized government’s duty to further the evolution of society, both physically and spiritually.

Here he would have agreed with Romney, believing in a Creator himself and its permeating presence, unlike many ardent church-state separatists. No one, however, can argue that a society with morality, from whatever source, is worse than one without.

Issue 3: American Foreign Policy

Again, from Washington’s farewell address: “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”

Romney expresses clear support of going into Iraq - an endorsement he later reversed in 2011, stating that the United States “obviously would not have gone in” if it were clear that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Oddly enough, UN inspectors had declared that Iraq did not possess WMD’s much earlier in the decade, and Romney still supported the war in 2008. A decade later, the United States is very much interwoven into the political destiny in Iraq thanks to faulty intelligence and a failure to listen to real intelligence - something I am sure George Washington would have frowned upon. 



The Founding Fathers On Mit...

Newsletter: Share: