closing the window

I wanted to start this with a list of all the terrible things Trump has done this week. Where would I start? I don't know what the future holds (I can barely keep track of the present). Anything I call an imminent threat risks underestimating or misdirecting the many potential impacts ahead. If I had to choose something? Kidnapping people and sending them to dangerous prisons in other countries seems bad. They used to call that "extraordinary" rendition. Eliminating birthright citizenship for enemies of the Trump-state doesn't sound good, either.

But it's not just him, is it? Project 2025 is acting on every public institution and a growing list of private ones. Stacking the Supreme Court has been on many conservative think tanks' wish list for years. State legislatures down to local offices are all swinging rightward. Every fired federal employee or shuttered office may never come back, in any form. The people I'm supposed to be siding with are still coming out of their own inaction. Lawlessness reigns against a wagging finger. Democrats trusted in institutions that were easily subverted.

This is why I don't like writing about politics. It's hard to watch so many things going wrong at once. What's serious about this current era is not the hell that people in power are unleashing. It's that people are already starting to see it as normal.

the overton window

"Overton Window" is a political term that feels made for our times. It's the range of choices that an elected official or decision-maker feels is open to them. People describe it as the list of options that the public is willing to accept. This window can shift over time. One example is prohibition. Outlawing alcohol at one time was a popular and reasonable choice. Prohibition in action shifted that window in a different direction. Even decades after the repeal of prohibition, no popular candidate would run on a booze ban. The Overton Window shifts with current events, public sentiment, even natural phenomenon. Supernovae, eclipses, and earthquakes may shift public opinion faster than change usually takes. Opinions well within the norm fall out the window with little notice. The terrible ones hang-glide in on a klan robe and retake their perch.

That metaphor aside (already coming true lol), what's the harm in a moving window? The Overton Window is never about what's possible. It's about what people in power think is possible. It sways the public into believing what is and isn't worth doing. A shifting window can close off new ideas as being impractical or unrealistic. Or it can convince the public that government isn't even worth saving: "what good does it even do me?" Worst of all, shifting norms are really hard to shift back. The right to abortion wasn't the divisive issue it is today. In the 1970s, white Christians were losing the war on civil rights and segregation. Conservatives used the issue in part to strengthen their flagging coalition. The window shifted into even more absurd positions from there.

what can we do about it?

To be honest, I’m not sure. Nobody has a surefire way to shift public opinion. Here are a few ways I'm trying to crawl out of the gallows.

Be cautious about what you legitimize. In some cases, debating a norm shift can give it legitimacy it doesn't deserve. People who don’t conform to a binary concept of gender have lived throughout human history. Raising questions like "should trans people compete in sports?" may feel innocent to people who are not trans. What they're really asking is, "should trans people exist in society?" If the public won't go there, they might begin, "shouldn't we want to make athletic competitions fair?" This turns into, "shouldn't we test hormone levels to prove someone's gender?" Soon, we're "debating" about checking children's genitals before they compete in team sports. This isn't normal! We can't normalize it.

Hamilton Nolan wrote The Patriotism Trap about how we can't accept a fight on the bully's terms.

“When one child in a schoolyard tries to insult another by saying “You’re gay!”, the proper response is not to cry, “No I’m not!” It is to say, “So what if I was?” To accept the very premise of the slur is to validate it.”

We must not accept every claim at face value. We can't look into or give space to both sides of every issue. Fascists want to strip people of their humanity. We can't keep falling for their tricks.

Hold on to our values. Almost every Democrat speaking to reporters this year has a take on the election. Somehow the candidate appealing to moderate Republicans was too beholden to the left. What Kamala Harris should've done, they claim, is move to the right. Even though her positions were further right than 2020 candidate Harris. She should have hidden her positions to appeal to a mysterious center. That would have worked, they claim, and we need to try it (again) in 4 years.

Don't fall for this again! Moving to the center on issues won't distinguish us or win more votes. We need to define what we stand for, what we value, and appeal to people on those terms. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's speaking tour is proof that this could work. Be mindful of the directions we take, especially if it feels like our current positions are unpopular. In my work, I think about my values, why I have them, and what story or thinking led me to those beliefs. What would this issue look like in an ideal world? How would that ideal world help people? What would it look like to live in a world where everyone is better off?

Try reframing the window. This one won't work for everyone, especially given the first two approaches I describe. We need people who can listen closer to what our opponents say they need. It means that some of us need to engage with people who are very far from the positions we hold. In no way are we trying to shift closer to them. Instead, what I want to understand is how the current system might not be supporting their needs. This is one form of what john a. powell describes as "bridging."

Consider the popular-among-conservatives meme about prescription drug costs. They usually go like, "if [drug I don't need] is free, why does [drug I do need] cost so much?" There are so many of these that I found a good roundup of what I'm describing. Those dummies are so close to getting it, right? All medicine should be free! We could ridicule folks who think like this (usually the easiest option on the internet). But a conversation that starts like this between two friends has a chance to go a different way. "You're right. It should be free. It wouldn't cost as much as politicians say it would. And then everyone could have the medical care they need." Like I said, this approach isn't for everyone. Sometimes people are jerks, and we can't waste all our time on jerks.

expanding the windows of possibility

Martin Niemöller's quote at the Holocaust Memorial Museum is so often shared that I may not need to repeat it. It's the one that begins, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist." The whole point of this quote is that we will never win when we fight alone. People are raising alarm bells right now because the lives of the most vulnerable among us are in danger. But the fascist state won't stop with them. They're already laying the groundwork for the rest of us. They're using AI surveillance and widespread poverty to force us into the life they want us to have.

As a person on the left side of politics, I'm kept away from the levers of power while I get the blame for pulling them. Sometimes the Overton Window feels like it's shifted too far away from where I am. The ideals that I hold are too far outside of what people in power will accept.

I also struggle with the claim that a moving Overton Window is what emboldens people like Trump. The window is supposed to tell people in power what we're comfortable with. It doesn't seem like he's too concerned about that. When we're thinking about what's possible, why should a political theory tell us what we can't do?