What is socially acceptable to talk about? What are we not really supposed to bring up in conversation at the dinner table? The health or intelligence of a nation can be diagnosed by the range of acceptable ‘things to say’ in polite society. The prevailing thought is that in a free society the Overton Window is quite large with free expression, free speech and free opinion a staple of free societies in the West today. Sadly, this seems to not be the case.
For ease of understanding here is the meaning of the Overton Window, lifted from Wikipedia.
“The term is named after the American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who proposed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton, the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that time.”
To boil it down, in politics and society there are certain things you can say or talk about and some things that are considered ‘extreme’ or ‘far _’. The label of ‘extreme’ is subjective and is related to the Overton Window.
Historically in authoritarian regimes or dictatorships the amount of things you can talk about would be minuscule. Any criticism of the regime would be extreme and therefore outlawed, and any truth from the regime was treated as the only acceptable thought process and discussion template. In free societies with an emphasis of free speech, free expression and free association the things you are allowed to talk about are very big. It does not mean one accepts all thought but it is acceptable to say things and rally people to that school of thought. This wide Overton Window would naturally be reinforced by certain norms like an aversion to things like authoritarianism and dictatorships allowing the Overton Window to REMAIN open.
What has happened since 1991 is the Overton Window being gradually closed with every passing year or two. There is an argument to say that the window was being closed way before this but to the fledgling countries around the world freedom was far a far greater benefit than the alternative.
In the UK talking about more and more things made the previously undiscussed not only acceptable but then recognised in society. For example talking about being gay/lesbian was let into the Overton Window. Later on it would be accepted in society and now talking openly about being gay or a lesbian is no longer taboo as it was in history. The list of acceptable things to talk about widened so greatly that Tony Blair decided to enshrine laws to make sure the Overton Window stayed open for those who had previously not been talked about - this became the basis for the Equalities Act.
When Tony Blair, who thought he was a god, opens a door he closes a window. Things started to get taken off the table. One of the most important was the debate on climate change. Tony Blair allowed a ruling to pass in the media that ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ as it was called then needed no ‘balance’ in the media any more; it was declared a settled issue. From then on discussing the climate in a balanced way was no longer needed and as years passed it became socially and politically unacceptable to be skeptical about draconian climate targets with no popular support. It became a non-issue for voters and was kept out of reach. The Overton Window was closing.
Fast forward more and you can see the list of acceptable things to talk about shortened greatly. Euroskepticism became a ‘far right issue’ until it became mainstream in 2016. The English flag became an ‘extreme right’ issue. ‘Criticising mass immigration’ became an extreme issue. Criticising foreign policy became an extreme issue. The march of ‘political correctness’ (a term originating in the Soviet Union to justify the censure of facts in favour of what the state says), rushed through the right side of politics and closed the windows. The growing international liberal consensus pushed by the political elites alongside the rise of the technocracy, bureaucracy and top-down management of politics led to the disassociation of an entire swathe of political discussion and consideration and allowed a new kind of intolerance to occur.
Fast forward to the 2024 election and there is actually a genuine change in this trend. The Overton window has reopened, if only for the electorate. For the main parties and the media the 1991-2022 window is still rigidly kept together. This isn’t unusual, it’s just we used to call these people the old conservatives. Nowadays it is the good old days of the 1960s-90s that the Overton Window pushers want to return to, in a way. The appetite for things that until recently fell outside the Overton Window has grown to become a majority view (coined in 1970 by President Nixon as the ‘silent majority’). Led by the change in attitudes on immigration, there is a palpable demand to discuss things previously denounced as extreme.
The media and political class have seen themselves as gatekeepers of the Overton Window, making sure things aren’t discussed. A clear example of this was the reaction to the Manchester Bombing in 2017 where around 40 young girls were murdered by an Islamist terrorist. The Overton Window allowed only criticism of social media and a ‘don’t look back in anger’ campaign quickly took off. No talk of the Islamist threat. Though just one of many examples, there is a demand to actually talk about things again.
There may be some people worried that opening the Overton Window will allow properly extreme views to become mainstream. Remember that these views are HISTORICALLY extreme, dating back years and years like fascism and communism. But remember 2009. The BNP leader Nick Griffin was allowed to come onto BBC Question Time in October. People were naturally outraged. He turned up, spoke his peace, and the BNP fell in the opinion polls to become a national irrelevance within a year. Give properly historically extreme views airtime and they will get their judgement from the public. What people have to fear instead is ignoring something that becomes so mainstream it delegitimises national politics, the media and institutions to the point that actual extreme views become possible. The more a growing number of people feel ignored and talked down to the more people within that group reach for the extremes.
There are far too many people in the world who would sacrifice free speech in order for certain groups or ideas to flourish. The millennial class, permeating our institutions now, are disproportionally filled with people who don’t want to hear anything opposing their very narrow world view. They disproportionally fill the researchers, advisors, politicians and panelists jobs, but the veneer of a consensus is broken and this election is showing this in the form of the rise of the Reform Party, campaigning against the consensus that dominates every other party and media outlet that basically agree on the main topics of the day: the economy, the role of the state, immigration, climate change, gender issues and foreign policy.
The One-Nation Tories running the Conservative Party want to keep the Overton Window as it is. Labour want to do the same whilst pretending they want to open it further with the faux patriotism of Kir Starmer (despite avoiding to wear an England football shirt and removing his poppy to talk to Muslim leaders last year). The Lib Dems want to keep the window closed. The SNP want to move the Overton Window further away from the right, as does Plaid Cymru. The Greens…well, good luck saying anything in a world run by them. The Reform party want to move the Overton Window to a wider setting. It’s impressive how they have managed to do this in this election with such a groundswell of support.
The media will spend the rest of the campaign pushing back firmly against Reform’s desire to talk things out. The outrage over Nigel Farage’s comments yesterday about NATO and the EU provoking Putin to take action in Ukraine (meaning Putin was able to sell the war to the Russian people incredibly easily - Putin is still awful!) is largely because it is largely forbidden to go against the narrative that the Ukraine war was a spontaneous act of a mad man wanting to recreate the Soviet Union. The truth is we have no idea what Putin’s motivations or hierarchy of motivations are, so we should be allowed to speculate. The anger is due to the nature of the Overton Window; but the outrage only highlights what Reform is trying to do; talk about things that were previously verbotten (forbidden).
As a voter in the digital age you have the power to find out information on your own and there is a genuine issue that there is almost a saturation of news outlets, points of perceived authority and ‘experts’. Ultimately you have to be a grown up, be well read and know the difference between fact and fiction. Don’t let others tell you what to think or do. If you want to talk about something you should be able to. The point of contention is what ACTION you should take about it; that is where the difference between freedom and the law comes in. If you let others decide what is acceptable and what should be talked about then who does the deciding? What if they are wrong?
What kind of Overton Window, therefore, do you want? Will that change your vote?
This article first appeared on the TDL Times. For more information, articles and more please visit www.thetdltimes.com.
Comentários