Skip to main content

The Overton Window

[Photo of Joseph P. Overton]

Beto O'Rourke (NOT the guy pictured here) has left the building, specifically, the Presidential campaign.

I begin that way because Beto's campaign always had a celebrity-celebrating Elvis-like aspect to it, Vanity Fair cover and all. If for that reason alone, I'm not sorry to see him go.

Before he left, he did give us a chance to think about what the term "Overton window" means, especially in the context of gun control in the US, and in more particular in Texas.

Joseph Overton, a free market oriented political scientist who passed away in 2003, and who IS the guy pictured above, originated the concept of a "window of discourse" encompassing all 'acceptable' positions on an issue, and since named after him by his admirers. The point is that only fringe thinkers believe proposition 'A,' and only thinkers on a contrary fringe, we shall say, believe 'E'.  The current policy is C and the more sensible not-so-fringe reformers say that C is wrong, we should move to D, or B, depending on their inclination. Anything beyond those five letters is outside the window.

One way to try to move discussion, and eventually policy, in your direction is to be the damned fool who says "F! Dammit F! FFF" while everyone around you points and laughs.

If you are going to play this role, you'll have to tolerate the laughter knowing that -- you've just moved the window. The guy saying 'E' can join in the laughter at your expense, and he's now become more respectable.

Beto may have moved the window (NOT in a direction of which Prof. Overton would have approved) Beto was the one shouting "F"! or, in this case, "Hell yes we're going to take your guns."  And then he left the campaign to sounds of derision.

The historians of posterity will judge.
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryNovember 16, 2019 at 8:41 AM

    To clarify, the "guns" he was referring to were, according to an article I just found, "high-powered rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47." If, as I understand, these are weapons of war, suitable in private hands solely for mass murder, then the derision was misguided, and, I suspect, driven by people who deliberately attempted to conflate such weapons with all guns (which I am not accusing you of doing). The deriders also probably did not mention that O'Rourke respected the weapon owners' right under the 5th Amendment to "just compensation" for their weapons.

    Confiscation, however desirable, may not now be feasible. but calling for it, as Elizabeth Warren calls for Medicare for all, which she acknowledges is also not now feasible, may shift the public debate and make lesser gun control measures and lesser forms of universal health insurance, more feasible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more