If you understand the concept, what it essentially reduces to is the notion that one can 'shift the middle' as well as playing within it. This is no brilliant discovery that requires the vice president of a public policy institute to figure out. By putting up fancy charts and graphs (really just two lists) and adding this fancy label "Overton window" named after a guy with some fancy-sounding title, Trevino is trying to 'credentialize' his simple idea to make it seem as if he is saying something new.
But what is the idea itself? Nothing but the notion that the middle can be shifted, and that extreme position taking can make other positions seem less extreme-- something that a 14 year old could have told you, or anyone who has asked for more or less than what they thought was the fair price at the beginning of a bargaining session. It certainly is not a new concept-- If I am not mistaken, this was one of the original notions that first catapaulted revival of the "play to the base" meme around 2002 or 2003-- the notion that in the 1990s we had forgotten how to 'shift the middle'.
This, by itself, DOES NOT show how one can both 'have your cake and eat it too,' as thereisnospoon claims. I agree with thereisnospoon that it's possible, but I don't think thereisnospoon connects clearly enough how the left can use radical position-taking to shift the center without marginalizing themselves in the process.
The basic dilemma is simple enough. Without staunchly and frankly standing up for the principles we believe in even though it may seem 'extreme' or even 'unthinkable', it will in the long run be impossible to pull the 'middle' (public discourse) back in our direction, thus leading it to be pulled inexorably to the right.
However, by advocating such policies we become viewed as people who hold extreme policies that the American people are not ready for, and thus as people who are not ready to wield power; hence the electorate votes for the relatively moderate-seeming Republican as the lesser of two evils.
The dilemma would be unsolvable if the problem on one side was the precise mirror as the problem on the other side-- in the case of the cake metaphor, eating a cake is the precise opposite of having it, by our definitions of those concepts (though we still 'have' a cake we've eaten in our stomach, we define 'have' as meaning uneaten). The two are as dichotomous as black and white; they are theoretically inseparable. You literally cannot have both.
However, the precise opposite of perceiving the left as extremists is perceiving the left as moderates; the precise opposite of being exposed to 'extreme' arguments is not being exposed to them. They are not strictly dichotomous: It is theoretically possible for a person to both view the left as moderate, yet is being exposed to 'extreme' arguments.
Only when you understand why it is theoretically possible can you begin to truly see how it can be practically accomplished-- in this case, the dissonance of having it both ways relies on the separation of the argument being heard from the reputation of a particular group-- in our case, the Democratic party. We want voters to hear our 'extreme' arguments being introduced into the public discourse, but we do not want voters to perceive the Democratic party as being extreme.
Since people will perceive a person taking an extreme position as extreme, the dissonance comes by two simple methods:
1) Make an argument without taking a position
By taking an 'extreme' position you are asking others to perceive you through the lens that they view the position. Immediately, you are pigeonholed as extreme and whatever you say is filtered through that lens. Even if you don't take an extreme position, by opening a political debate with position-taking you are inviting others to make a knee-jerk reaction on their opinion of your position and filter all of your arguments through whether they agree or disagree with that position. If they don't agree with it, they'll likely mentally brace themselves to reject any argument you've made-- even before you've opened your mouth to explain your reasons. They know where you're headed and they've already decided they don't like it.
On the other hand, by making an argument without specifying which policies you are arguing for, but making points that support that policy nonetheless, people are forced to look at your reasoning first and only, regardless of their knee-jerk reaction to any policy. They are forced to evaluate your arguments on their own merits. Then, at the end, it is their own reasoning process that will lead them to see why the position you prefer would make sense. Rather than manipulation, this is actually a way to get people to keep their minds open and actually listen to you, rather than knee-jerk pigeonholing you.
You can argue for any position you like without naming it-- until they've seen the merit of your reasoning. And if they don't see the merit-- well, you never have to come out and say which position you were supporting, and you're never pigonholed as an 'angry leftist' for taking that position.
2) Let the buyer hear your pitch before you ask them to sign the dotted line.
Voters are going to the polls in November. Do we really expect to convince the majority of American voters, -- by this November-- or November 2008, for that matter, to accept a new staunchly liberal consensus? Even the most optimstic wouldn't do that.
Yet we are asking the American voters to vote in a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President less than a thousand days from now.
Would a salesperson ever ask a buyer to make a purchase before they heard the entire sales pitch, read the warranty, and handled the product to their satisfaction? Then how can we expect the voters to buy our line and plank to the T before we've had the time to show the American public why our policies will work? A good- and respectful!- salesperson moves as the customer's pace.
But if we move at a slower pace aren't we forgetting the "Overton window" lesson? No: moving at the customer's pace doesn't involve toning down your sales pitch. It doesn't involve making arguments for 'moderate' positions for electoral strategy; it simply means not enacting, or promising to enact, that which the voter is not ready for.
The product is the Democratic party, and more specifically, the candidates up for office this November, and in November 2008. The salespersons are the rank and file liberals; the blogs; the think tanks; the institutions; the independent organizations; the left wing media; in other words, everything else. It is the job of us, the salespersons, to push the American people to the left. It is up to the candidates, the party officers, to caress the American people, to meet them where they are right now.
This is the way that the American people get the best deal: they have the choice of a moderate Democratic candidate, one who they're willing to vote for NOW. But they're also hearing some staunchly liberal arguments, trying to sway them to our side, who they might vote for in the future.
Finally, by dissasociating themselves from the liberal independent groups, Democratic candidates and governing officials can show how moderate they are-- this giving the Democratic party a moderate image (even as the American people are hearing the liberal message from those very groups-- thus moving discourse to the left).
This is how we can have our cake and eat it too; how we can move the Overton window without seeming as too far left. My theme is GIVING, not ASKING.
1) Make arguments, don't take positions.
By taking positions on things before we've made the arguments, we're asking for agreement before we've made our case.
2) Separate the moderate Party from the liberal Independent Groups.
"The left" isn't an inseparable mass and isn't equivalent to the Democratic party. By putting up liberal candidates before an electorate is fully convinced of the liberal message, we are asking a lot of trust-- too much.
This proposal is not cost-free. It requires a great deal of self control-- control I'm not sure this blogosphere has (in which case we'll simply self-destruct as the Goldwaterites did). It means not opposing moderate candidates, even candidates that did things we abhor, like come out against abortion rights (Bob Casey) or vote for the Iraq war resolution (Hillary Clinton). Note I am only talking about candidates (such as Presidential candidates) who are facing moderate or conservative electorates-- not ones in places like Vermont. As you can probably see that by itself is a problem for dailykos.
It also means those who follow the "stir up the base" philosophy should focus their emphasis from nominating liberal candidates-- shifting the 'party' left-- to getting the message out to braoder swaths of the American people, who maybe do not frequent the blogosphere. Those who follow the "move to the center to win" should perhaps take over the 'influence the party' segment for a while.
But the message of this diary is one of hope. It says that we can have our cake and eat it too, and it has shown precisely how we can do that, even though it requires a division of labor that puts the liberals in the message-building side and the moderates in the party-relations side.
I know many people won't like those sacrifices, despite the message of hope, but those of you who thought changing the political environment of this great nation would be easy and require neither patience or discipline have been wasting your time all along.
American people know when they're getting a good deal. They know when one side of the political spectrum respects them and their electoral power. Those who ask a moderate electorate to vote for a liberal candidate don't show the American people that respect. And like a pilgrim who has failed to bow before his deity, they will lose at the polls.
