The Overton Window

[Chris]

But we've been being bullshited for decades.

[Kacper]

The idea that gays could marry or that people would be forced to buy health insurance a generation ago were so outside the mainstream that only fringe people believed in them. I don't think slapping a term like "Overton Window" on something changes the dynamic that politicians run on what they can sell and society only tolerates so much change at once in any direction away from the status quo.

[Chris]

The idea that gays could marry or that people would be forced to buy health insurance a generation ago were so outside the mainstream that only fringe people believed in them. I don't think slapping a term like "Overton Window" on something changes the dynamic that politicians run on what they can sell and society only tolerates so much change at once in any direction away from the status quo.

The Overton Window isn't causative, it's just a theoretical explanation for how the nation moves left and right and accepts extremes as norms.

[Kacper]

The Overton Window isn't causative, it's just a theoretical explanation for how the nation moves left and right and accepts extremes as norms.

It really doesn't explain anything. It just illustrates that today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative.

[Captdon]

I understand the Winds of Change.

[Chris]

It explains how things change, how we get used to hearing something and consider it normal.

[Chris]

The OP rant is not exactly true on the Overton Window, as I learn from:

...Among Joe Overton’s many contributions, he was instrumental in defining the role of the Mackinac Center in particular and think tanks in general. He understood that, regardless of how persuasive the think tank, lawmakers are constrained by the political climate. Therefore, Overton concluded, to be truly successful, the Mackinac Center should not focus on direct policy advocacy, but instead should focus on educating lawmakers and the public in an attempt to change the political climate.

To answer the inevitable questions about the role of a think tank, Overton developed an explanation that others have since dubbed the "Overton Window of Political Possibilities." Though his theory has roots in complex public choice economics, it boils down quite easily.

Imagine, if you will, a yardstick standing on end. On either end are the extreme policy actions for any political issue. Between the ends lie all gradations of policy from one extreme to the other. The yardstick represents the full political spectrum for a particular issue. The essence of the Overton window is that only a portion of this policy spectrum is within the realm of the politically possible at any time. Regardless of how vigorously a think tank or other group may campaign, only policy initiatives within this window of the politically possible will meet with success. Why is this?

Politicians are constrained by ideas, even if they have no interest in them personally. What they can accomplish, the legislation they can sponsor and support while still achieving political success (i.e. winning reelection or leaving the party strong for their successor), is framed by the set of ideas held by their constituents — the way people think. Politicians have the flexibility to make up their own minds, but negative consequences await the elected officeholder who strays too far. A politician’s success or failure stems from how well they understand and amplify the ideas and ideals held by those who elected them.

In addition to being dependent on the ideas that form the boundaries of the political climate, politicians are also known to be self-interested and desirous of obtaining the best political result for themselves.[2] Therefore, they will almost always constrain themselves to taking actions within the "window" of ideas approved of by the electorate. Actions outside of this window, while theoretically possible, and maybe more optimal in terms of sound policy, are politically unsuccessful. ...

@ An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities