10 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignThey say don't go
Glenn Beck wrote a thriller novel, in the faction genre with this name, but the title also describes a political theory.
From the horses mouth http://www.mackinac.org/7504
Is this theory valid? Is it operative today?
on Overton mountain
If your looking
for a wife.
10 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyser😀 I had never heard of it before, but it seems somewhat plausible. I think about my progression from a couple of years back when I could find no possible reason why people would text message, to where a day doesn't go by without my using messaging a half dozen times anyway.
They say don't go
on Overton mountain
If your looking
for a wife.
11 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignI remember only 5 years ago having a conversation with a coworker and we had agreed that it is ridiculous to text someone on a phone when you can just call them. Now it is the norm.
😀 I had never heard of it before, but it seems somewhat plausible. I think about my progression from a couple of years back when I could find no possible reason why people would text message, to where a day doesn't go by without my using messaging a half dozen times anyway.
11 Sep 13
Originally posted by joe beyserIf we can grow to accept practices we once found idiotic, then can we be manipulated to accept moral and ethical concepts by gradually broadening the window of conception. The suggestions need not be accepted, but the ones following may seem less extreme by comparison.
I remember only 5 years ago having a conversation with a coworker and we had agreed that it is ridiculous to text someone on a phone when you can just call them. Now it is the norm.
In short, shock them with really extreme and outlandish stuff, and they will not object to moderate stuff.
12 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignLike if we get used to the TSA sticking their hands down our pants using the same glove on everyone, we probably wont belly ache for having ID chips embedded in our skin.
If we can grow to accept practices we once found idiotic, then can we be manipulated to accept moral and ethical concepts by gradually broadening the window of conception. The suggestions need not be accepted, but the ones following may seem less extreme by comparison.
In short, shock them with really extreme and outlandish stuff, and they will not object to moderate stuff.
13 Sep 13
Originally posted by normbenignHere (borrowed from the Wikipedia entry on the Overton Window, I must admit), is a relevant quote from a nineteenth-century political novel.
If we can grow to accept practices we once found idiotic, then can we be manipulated to accept moral and ethical concepts by gradually broadening the window of conception. The suggestions need not be accepted, but the ones following may seem less extreme by comparison.
In short, shock them with really extreme and outlandish stuff, and they will not object to moderate stuff.
"Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable;–and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made.”
“It is no loss of time,” said Phineas, “to have taken the first great step in making it.”
“The first great step was taken long ago,” said Mr. Monk,–”taken by men who were looked upon as revolutionary demagogues, almost as traitors, because they took it. But it is a great thing to take any step that leads us onwards.”
— Anthony Trollope, Phineas Finn
13 Sep 13
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignTalking about "broadening the window" maybe misunderstands the concept - what it's really about is shifting the window to include some new possibilities and exclude others. For instance, as I've observed before on these boards, within living memory the highest tax rate in the UK ( on "unearned increment" ) was 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound ( i.e., 97.5% ). Now, such a rate would be considered outlandish, and tax rates of 50% are considered "high". So since the 1970s in Britain there's been a shift from an Overton window where the available choices were "high tax rates" and "moderate tax rates" to a window where to available choices are "moderate tax rates" and "low tax rates". There are still of course tax bands (ie, we still have progressive taxation), but this has allowed some people on the right to begin talking about what previously would have seemed outlandishly extreme, a flat tax, and if the Overton window continued to shift to the right, the available choices might soon be "low but progressive tax rates" or "low flat tax rates".
If we can grow to accept practices we once found idiotic, then can we be manipulated to accept moral and ethical concepts by gradually broadening the window of conception. The suggestions need not be accepted, but the ones following may seem less extreme by comparison.
13 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/05/09/208784/-Why-the-Right-Wing-Gets-It-and-Why-Dems-Don-t-UPDATED
In short, shock them with really extreme and outlandish stuff, and they will not object to moderate stuff.
Here's an interesting (if somewhat outdated - it was written when the Democrats were decisively on the defensive during the second Bush Jr administration) account of how the Overton Window works. There isn't really a single summative paragraph I can post here, but it's worth a read.
I can't now trace the reference, but I remember someone pointing out at about the same time that the Democrats always seemed embarrassed by their left-wing fringe (eg, Dennis Kucinich) while the Republicans gave their right-wing fringe full play. The writer pointed out that this kept the ideas espoused by the broader left wing of the Democratic Party marginalised, while the noisy presence of Republicans who, to take one instance, oppose abortion in all cases, even rape or incest, made the views of those who oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest seem less outlandish, more acceptable as a political possibility.
18 Sep 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeYes, I understand that political parties use shifting of the window, or expanding it or contracting it to whatever goals they pursue.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/05/09/208784/-Why-the-Right-Wing-Gets-It-and-Why-Dems-Don-t-UPDATED
Here's an interesting (if somewhat outdated - it was written when the Democrats were decisively on the defensive during the second Bush Jr administration) account of how the Overton Window works. There isn't really a single summative paragraph I can po ...[text shortened]... ]except[/i] rape or incest seem less outlandish, more acceptable as a political possibility.
Glen Beck's novel "The Overton Window" uses a fictional PR firm as the engine of moving, contracting or expanding the window. Probably the most popular conspiracy theories in the US involve unnamed higher powers who are the real puppet masters, that politicians serve. Do you think it is possible that PR or advertising is the real power on the planet?