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

1

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

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

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

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

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
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

In a ‘Huffington Post’ piece I wrote, oh, over a year ago, I suggested the President needed to learn how to speak Republican because he’s—the Democrats, I think, are unsuccessful so many times,and the truth was it was an attempt to help the Democrats—they’re unsuccessful because they use the language of rights, whereas the Republicans more speak the language of results.  It comes back to this whole split between those who embrace the status quo and those who seek to change it.  I’ve learned to change things.  Almost all my successful change has been from right to left.  If I can win over the conservatives, I can win over the left, so I move that way.  Most social change movements, because their friends are from the left, they move left to right and they never get there.  They always bump up and they say, "These darn Republicans! These darn conservatives!"

When you’re changing a system and people have rights, if you as a progressive come into that debate and say, "I want rights," the impression for the listener is you’re taking something from me.  You want something that I have.  You want more rights.  And that’s not usually true.  We’re not taking something from you.  A very concrete example, the President was pushing for a universal healthcare mandate for the country, and he kept saying, "Everybody in this country deserves the right of healthcare," and progressives applauded.  And I could just feel the conservatives just digging in deeper, deeper, deeper for fear of what was being taken away from them.

And I used as a linguistic way of expressing it, a conservative way of expressing the same goal, would have been to say, "Folks, we have universal healthcare in the United States.  It’s called the emergency room, and we pay for it.  And we cover people’s healthcare right now who don’t pay into any insurance scheme and you’re carrying them.  If you’re paying taxes right now, you’re covering them.  Wouldn’t it make sense for us as a nation to just ask those folks to register and get into an insurance program so we can cut their cost, we can be more proactive with their healthcare, and we can avoid the vast growth of healthcare costs?"  Now there’s two ways of saying the same thing.  One is an appeal to the status quo, the person who’s the more conservative.  The other is about rights, and I feel like rights language just by its nature scares people, and I think it’s not usually successful in bringing about change.

I think the issue that divides these two mindsets as status quo versus evolving, I think very often it comes down to a personality.  And if you are part of a group that the status quo is not working for you, you’re probably on the -- let’s evolve; I want to change the way gay people are treated; I want to change the way women are treated; I want minorities, people of other faiths, minority faiths.  If you’re part of the establishment, it’s a pretty good deal.  If you’re part of the status quo, it’s kind of working for you and you don’t understand why anybody would want to change it, and it’s very frightening.  So I think it kind of depends on where you fall down in those two areas.  

A Democratic rights bill might be something along the line of an immigration bill that says we’re going to give more rights to children who are born in the United States to illegal parents.  So we’re going to increase rights to that population.  Well, for the conservative mindset you’re breaking the rules.  So you’re adding a new group in and you’re incentivizing a process for illegal immigration.  Again, a more practical approach in my opinion would have been to say, "We have children in this country who are born here.  Under our law, that makes them citizens and they’re born by illegal parents.  How are we going to—let’s be practical--to deal with that we need to do this, this and this?"

So again, one of the very practical results-oriented, let’s get these kids registered, do you really want people who are illegal driving around without driver’s licenses because they’re so afraid of being in the system or showing up in the emergency room?  So those would be two examples possibly.  I think the language of conservatives is more about economics, and economics lends itself more to results.  "We’re going to cut the budget.  This is what it looks like."  It sounds very clear.  "We’re not going to raise taxes."  That’s a pretty clear result.  Or I think on the left, some of the cases that they’re making are more difficult to make in a results-oriented way.  But that was always my effort when I was trying to do social change here more domestically, was, how can we make this a result that will come from it as opposed to adding a right that’s going to threaten you as status quo?

Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd

 

Richard Tafel: How to Speak...

Newsletter: Share: