29
Fri, Mar

The Democratic Debate Moved the Overton Window and Redefined the Pickford Effect! Say What?

ARCHIVE

GELFAND’S WORLD--Hillary Clinton moved her presidential possibilities forward by looking like a movie star, -- that is to say, a particular movie star from a long-ago era. Bernie Sanders probably did more to change the course of modern American history than Hillary, but at some cost to his electability. In considering what Bernie accomplished in the debate that may change the course of American politics, we should consider a term known as the Overton Window

The late Joseph Overton was a political thinker who explained that at any time, for any one subject, there is a fairly narrow set of policy options that politicians are willing to put forward. For example, we are not likely to hear an American political candidate suggest that we abolish state governments in favor of unified national control. It's just way too far outside our history and practice to be acceptable to voters. Likewise, the idea that states should be able to reject legally binding federal laws goes beyond the currently accepted understanding of either government or politics, in spite of the fact that a few extremists have suggested adopting that approach. 

The Overton Window is a term used to describe this idea. You can find a more detailed discussion of Overton at the Mackinac Center.  What's important about the Overton Window in modern day American politics is that generations of conservative Republicans understood the concept and have been making use of it to their own advantage. They intentionally set out to move the Overton Window in a direction of their own choosing. 

For example, the Republicans have flogged the idea of rejecting any and all increases in government expenditures, in spite of the fact that this policy is naive and foolish in light of economic theory. 

But it's become a central doctrine -- one might even refer to it as a dogma -- of the Republican Party that government expenditures have to be reduced over the course of time. 

Their Overton Window moving even included pushing at the way we understand the English language. The word liberal was made into a pejorative by generations of conservatives. The more extreme term, used as an epithet, was the word socialist. That word encapsulated all things that the conservative mind could imagine as wrong. It might as well have been translated as sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, or as that word that eventually lost a lot of its original oomph, communist

In brief, the idea of socialism in any shape or form was pushed outside of the Overton Window that defined the acceptable range of political debate. Actually, the word socialism was pushed outside the Overton Window well before Overton popularized the concept. The right wing implies in its use of this term that socialism involves a totalitarian system in which individual rights have been eclipsed, in brief, something like the old Soviet Union or perhaps the previous communist Yugoslavia. 

Now comes Bernie Sanders onto the national stage in front of millions of his followers, defending the term Democratic Socialism. In the Democratic Party debate the other night, he mentioned Denmark as the model for this concept. The Denmark argument didn't go very far, but the fact that a national candidate with a substantial following was willing to use the word Socialist was of the utmost importance. Whether you consider it to be a good thing or a bad thing, Bernie Sanders' embrace of the term served to widen the acceptable level of economic debate in the American republic. 

In short, Bernie moved the left edge of the Overton Window. It will no longer be possible for the right wing to speak to younger Americans as if the word socialist is a naughty word. Bernie Sanders uses the word. People are entitled to ask what he means by that word, and in doing so, their own internal Overton Windows will be shifted. 

The point about widening the Overton Window in this particular way is that it opens the possibility of a more adult discussion of economics. Bernie cannot possibly mean socialism in the form of soviet communism. 

What he actually seems to mean is something a lot more prosaic. You might even refer to it as a return to traditional American liberalism that was exemplified by the administrations of Democratic presidents from FDR through LBJ. It is in fact a traditionally American approach to economic crises that avoids the excesses of revolutionary socialist thought from the 19th century, while adapting tax policy and government expenditures to stabilize the economy and to improve the lives of the poorer half of our country. 

I don't know whether Bernie Sanders intentionally set out to expand the breadth of national debate and, in so doing, to lose the presidential primary race. But that seems to be what he is accomplishing. His name may go into the history books alongside that of Elizabeth Warren as the two modern politicians who pushed back against the conservative freight train. 

One effect of Sanders staking out the Democratic Socialist position is that it allows Hillary Clinton to come across as centrist in presenting herself as a traditional liberal. When asked, she described herself as a progressive. That word may be a weaker word than the more traditional liberal, but it tells Democratic voters what they need to know. In other words, Hillary is benefitting from the fact that Sanders widened the Overton Window. 

Speaking of Hillary, I couldn't help but notice that she stood out not only verbally, but visually during the Democratic debate. Her carefully styled blond hair stood out among a sea of dark-suited ex-governors and senators. I couldn't help but think of her resemblance to Mary Pickford, another pioneering woman, albeit from a century ago. 

Mary Pickford wasn't really glamorous in ordinary photographs, but on camera, she positively glowed. Some of this was her signature curly blond hair, but there have been lots of blonds. What caused her to stand out was her ability to smile in radiant fashion and, on occasions that demanded, to pout. Hillary's smile channeled a little of that Pickford charm, and in so doing, connected with the audience. 

One editorial comment of my own: Just as Bernie Sanders stole the night with his distain for the whole Republican attack on Hillary's email server, I have my own irritation with television's insistence on scoring the debates as if they were boxing matches. I would prefer that this were kept to a minimum, rather than being the central focus of the presentation. I suspect that most viewers found something to like in the comments made by each candidate, and equally likely, something to dislike. 

There are going to be a lot of primaries and a few more debates, and the idea that a few CNN commenters can attempt to skew the political effects of a multi-hour debate has become a problem. 

That being said, I don't think it's wrong to conclude that Hillary did what she needed to do -- in fact a lot more than she needed to do -- and thereby solidified her position as frontrunner and likely nominee. And I suspect that Bernie Sanders held his own in the history books, even if that's not what he is trying to do. 

(Bob Gelfand writes on culture and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])  

-cw

 

CityWatch

Vol 13 Issue 84

Pub: Oct 16, 2015

 

Get The News In Your Email Inbox Mondays & Thursdays