Lately I\u2019ve been pondering the prudence of the Overton Window \u2014 not necessarily its existence, but rather, how the boundaries and framing are established. Follow me here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Overton Window is the span of public policy that is considered acceptable at any given moment in time. It was a model established by the late Joseph P. Overton, former senior VP of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Writes the Center:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEver wonder how politicians choose which policies they\u2019ll support? Or have you ever noticed that a politician championing one policy idea can win an election in one country, but at the same time no politician in your country will support that same policy? The Overton Window of Political Possibility can help explain these phenomena\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support \u2014 they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Overton Window doesn’t describe everything about how politics works, but it does describe one key thing: Politicians will not support whatever policy they choose whenever they choose; rather, they will only espouse policies that they believe do not hurt their electoral chances. And the range of policy options available to a politician are shaped by ideas, social movements and shared norms and values within society.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n All of this suggests that politicians are more followers than they are leaders \u2014 it\u2019s the rest of us who ultimately determine the types of policies they\u2019ll get behind. It also implies that our social institutions \u2014 families, workplaces, friends, media, churches, voluntary associations, think tanks, schools, charities, and many other phenomena that establish and reinforce societal norms \u2014 are more important to shaping our politics than we typically credit them for.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s a fascinating concept \u2014 probably one the political science enthusiasts eat up. It explains why a concept perceived to be radical or ludicrous years ago can be boldly advocated for now, especially when those radical voices are very loud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I\u2019ve landed here today more because of a phenomenon extracted from those voices that I can\u2019t quite comprehend. And if I\u2019m honest, I also don\u2019t believe it\u2019s wise, healthy, and good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In multiple avenues and arenas, seemingly intelligent persons are attempting to determine the types of policies the politicians will get behind by encouraging the cutting off, rooting out, and extinction of relationship with anyone who thinks differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are encouraging increased ideological isolation. And thus, increased intolerance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fast and furious, fueled by partisan news, we are witnessing the argument for intolerance, \u201ccancel culture,\u201d and how the Overton Window should be framed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Writes Julie Mastrine, the Director of Marketing for Intramuralist fave, AllSides, <\/em>in an editorial last week:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe problem is that people are increasingly rationalizing targeting those they disagree with\u2026 Many fervently believe that the people who oppose them are on the side of evil, and they are on the side of good. This is the danger of not understanding the other side.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So much of our intolerance (the cutting off, rooting out, and extinction of relationship based on disagreement) <\/em>is based on a lack of working intently to understand another. It is radical and ludicrous to suggest, for example, that absolutely everyone who voted for one presidential candidate or the other is _________ (insert choice negative adjective here). <\/em>That’s not evidence of logic nor good sense. That’s more evidence of intolerance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to Mastrine\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cExamining the other side\u2019s views requires honestly examining our own, and admitting when we ourselves may be wrong. Most would rather not do this. The other side \u2014 those they seek to \u2018hold accountable\u2019 via extreme measures \u2014 might actually have some valid points, or a more complex worldview than is being presented by one-sided media outlets. But instead of conducting an honest inquiry into the other side, some in our modern society shun them, \u2018name and shame\u2019 them, fire them, or put them on lists for targeting when their party gets into power.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Examining the other side\u2026 honestly examining our own\u2026 admitting where we may wrong\u2026 acknowledging where we may be intolerant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now that sounds wise, healthy, and good\u2026 and a step toward respectful dialogue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lately I\u2019ve been pondering the prudence of the Overton Window \u2014 not necessarily its existence, but rather, how the boundaries and framing are established. Follow me here. The Overton Window is the span of public policy that is considered acceptable at any given moment in time. It was a model established by the late Joseph … <\/p>\n