The ongoing debate within the Democratic party about voting for this week’s budget package is a fascinating case study to me - I think it may demonstrate a disagreement on the philosophy of change, and was inspiration for me to try to write some thoughts on the subject:
The Overton Window and Friends
For the uninitiated, the Overton Window (wikipedia) describes a theory of change which is extremely relevant to modern politics and social dynamics: the more radical an argument is, the more normal it makes less radical versions of the same argument seem. This is a well-studied phenomenon, and almost certainly one that will define modern politics.
I think there’s also a secondary resultant effect of intentional Overton Window abuse (subliminal or not - I don’t think JD Vance is smart enough to wield this power should he become aware of it, for instance): it creates a cascade of logical fallacies related to defending positions that are Red Herrings or Strawmen. An example would be when someone makes an obviously false statement like “immigrants are criminals” - to debate this on the merits would be foolish - but it achieves both the Overton Window shift and multiple logical fallacies that are difficult to ignore even for the most rational people. If you started in the position “Immigration is literally the foundation of our country, and is one of our greatest strengths”, you could get to “Maybe immigration policy should be reconsidered” without necessarily changing your political stance.
Self-Owns for Everyone
It’s reasonable to imagine that the best way to combat an Overton Window is simply to advocate for polar-opposite extremist ideas. You could start intentionally pointing out the merits of Communism, Primitivism, or other unpopular leftist ideas in the hopes that popular ideas among the folks in which you influence would take a leftward shift that does not result in any of the “extreme” ideologies becoming popular, but results in the more pragmatic ideas from them becoming normalized.
I hope that the risks involved in this approach are obvious, but let me say some out loud:
- Some people will believe you are being earnest, and become extremists.
- Some people will not believe you are being earnest, and the window will not move.
- This is a paradox, which will result in internal debate among those you influence.
- If you are advocating for extremism, you cannot, by definition, also advocate for a more popular/pragmatic/achievable policy.
These are pretty big issues, which in my opinion make it quite clear why pretty much all American policy is currently in chaos. I find myself almost daily asking myself (about the approach of American elected officials and those who voted for them) “why would you do something so obviously counter productive and stupid, especially when you very likely stand to personally suffer from the results?” I think the bullet points above go a long way towards explaining a lot of this behavior, if you imagine that nobody considered them while they were reaping the short-term rewards of Overton Window abuse.
Beyond just being divisive, Overton Window abuse also makes it literally impossible to create specific policy:
- Some of your supporters are happy that you’re moving the window but don’t believe you’re an extremist. If you actually propose extremist policies, they will abandon you.
- Some of your supporters are happy that you’re finally supporting their extremist ideas in a popular platform. If you don’t propose extremist policies, you’ll be seen as a traitor to the cause.
So, the only thing you can gain by abusing the window is a tenuous popularity. But you better be vague! Or alternatively, you can do everything at once, contradicting yourself. This is the path the current administration chose - promise prosperity and sign orders enacting austerity, while everyone else attempts to debate logical fallacies.
This sadly brings us to an unfortunate reality: an equal-and-opposite approach to right wing extremist ideas is probably not left wing extremist ideas. Both will likely combine to create more chaos, not less. Infighting is a direct result of the contradiction of proposing extreme ideas in service of incremental movement; if nobody believes you, the window doesn’t move. If some people believe you, you can only create chaos, because your policy cannot be clearly defined. If everyone believes you, you’re Ted Kaczynski, and the window either moves very little or not at all.
The Left Is Fucked
It seems to me that this is what is currently disturbing the left:
- Gavin Newsom clearly admires the right’s exploitation of the Overton Window, but amazingly doesn’t even understand how to do it for the left and so has inexplicably decided to help exploit it further towards the right. Ideally this is political suicide but I assume he’ll just run as a Republican or try a party flip.
- Chuck Schumer is unaware of the window, or perhaps anything outside of congress, and still believes compromise and status quo is on the table. Members of his party will likely use him as an excuse to defy their constituents.
- AOC & Bernie believe they can ride the lightning and want to open the leftist Overton Window Pandora’s box. It’s possible Bernie already did? Maybe that’s what 2016 was about?
- Warren as always is attempting to prioritize logic & economics, which will result in an anti-authoritarian obstructionist vote, but it’s unclear how long she’ll be willing to break eggs if she knows the omelette is going to be shit anyway.
My opinions based on the above:
- I don’t think we can shut Pandora’s Overton Window, but I do think that we can prepare to rebuild once it has run its course.
- I’m not optimistic that we can get anywhere without the system destroying somewhat important parts of itself.
- I am focused on local empathy and trying to make sure that we are prepared for damage control when the chaos reaches us.
Helpful Tips For Living in a Post-Pandora’s Overton Window Hellscape
I do not believe that policy will save either party right now, but irrefutable mission statements may. What if we held politicians to a simple standard when it comes to commenting on policy:
Statements about policy should include clear goals (and optionally methods), which are not possible to understand by both sides of an Overton Window as beneficial.
Here are some statements that do not pass the test:
- “We will create American prosperity”
- “We will be business friendly”
- ”We will defend American families”
- “We will uphold the constitution”
Here are the same statements, made in a way that passes the test:
- “We will declare war on Canada”
- “We will raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for billionaires”
- “We will ban gay marriage”
- “We will pack the supreme court with unqualified partisan judges to intentionally mis-interpret the constitution towards our goals”
These ones also pass the test:
- “We will cancel student loan debt”
- “We will prevent & prosecute monopolies”
- “We will prevent and/or reverse legislation that encroaches on the personal liberties of Americans”
- “We will amend the constitution if necessary to prevent consolidation of power in any branch of government”
It’s hard to know when to believe people, which makes it easy to act against your own interests - this is a problem that will get worse as we explore this window, unless we can start to understand when our leaders are acting in good faith and when they’re playing a game. It’s important to believe people when they say what they mean, and equally important to refuse to interpret statements optimistically.