Okay, I don’t want to bore people to tears. But tax policy is, after all, germane to almost everything we want to get done as progressives. And I think that what is obvious to almost everyone is that movement conservatives have been able to use the Overton Window to successfully turn the once-mainstream idea of progressive taxation--or, really, the idea of raising taxes for any reason, ever--as something unthinkable. Well, if they can do that, why can’t we use the Overton Window to change it back? If you’re interested, please follow along...
Many on this site have previously discussed the Overton Window at length, but for those of you not familiar with it, here's a couple of paragraphs from Peter Daou's recent Huff Po article on the subject:
From Wikipedia:
The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after its originator, Joe Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. The idea is that priming the public with fringe ideas intended to be and remain unacceptable, will make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison. The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as: Unthinkable - Radical - Acceptable - Sensible - Popular -- Policy
He continues:
The Overton Window is a sophisticated tactic to help move the Right's self-described "unthinkable" ideas all the way to becoming policy. The strategy is to make radical ideas seem acceptable and comfortable. They describe a "ladder" of steps - degrees of public acceptance. They say they work to walk the public up this ladder step by step. According to the Overton Window concept, when the public FIRST hears ideas like getting rid of public schools, they consider them unthinkable, but with time and repetition, these ideas begin to be considered only radical, then with familiarity they become acceptable, and eventually sensible and worth putting into policy.
So I think we have to ask ourselves-- how have we gotten to a place where raising the tax rate from 36% to 39.6% makes you a full-fledged socialist and drives people to near insanity? Because in 20 short years (since Poppy Bush’s last tax hike) the rightwing has used the Overton Window to make the sensible, mainstream idea of raising taxes for almost any reason nearly unthinkable (the genesis perhaps actually began even earlier with the passing of Proposition 13 in California in 1978). To move the tax debate back to a sensible equilibrium, what about this—begin developing independent think-tanks specifically devoted to tax policy in which they begin saying:
"I believe we need to raise the tax rate to the Eisenhower-era level of 91%. We had had a growing middle class at that time and businesses were very profitable."
What I have just done is counter the currently mainstream-American sacred cow of never raising taxes by uttering the unthinkable—raising taxes to the Eisenhower level of 91% (when everything was so flat-top groovy). With repetition by various outlets, and with time, perhaps the idea will be merely considered radical. With more time elapsing we could possibly shift the debate back to the sensible left, where an early Reagan-era level of 50% taxation on the upper class is an acceptable mode of discourse.
What the democrats have done over the past 30 years is completely cede the ground on taxation by allowing the republicans to use the Overton Window to demonize all forms of legitimate taxation. With some forethought and careful planning, democrats can do something about that. And the way to begin is for someone to begin uttering the unthinkable.
What do you think?