Revisionism, Reactionism and the ACP Part III

A slippery slope vs a sheer cliff. Which did we get? Let's find out!

Part III

From the Overton Window to the Wall

We can examine the decomposition of societal discourse by examining it through the framework of the Overton Window. Identified in the 1990’s by political observer Joseph Overton, it was supposed that what we accept in society is indeed reflected in politics. While a large antisocial act would instantly have an actor vilified, smaller acts of unfavorable behavior in high frequency will inure the public to larger and larger feats of tragedy.

The year 2000 saw Presidential candidate George W Bush readying a stump speech in Naperville, IL. He spied a journalist with whom there was some apparent animosity and was heard on the hot mic remarking to Vice-Presidential candidate Dick Chaney, “There’s Adam Clymer, a major league asshole from the New York Times.” Despite the “backstage” nature of the remarks, this was big news. He was asked about it several times in subsequent articles and interviews. He refused to offer apology.

In the 2004 Presidential campaign, Democrat Howard Dean was seen as a shoe-in not only for the Party’s nomination for Presidential candidate over rivals John (Swiftboat) Kerry and a man you’ll only ever remember forgetting, John Edwards; but indeed the Presidency itself. It seemed increasingly likely that George W Bush would again enter the race as the incumbent on the Republican side and the prevailing wisdom was that Dean would eloquently wipe the mat with the coked out bumpkin. Whether he would have won is anyone’s guess (he would not have, America doesn’t replace a President in what we can be convinced is a war and he wasn’t historically unpopular enough to change that yet), but Dean was unable to recover and was mocked out of the race due to an odd rallying cry he tried out at the end of the Nevada primary, which he had lost to both of the above.

Contrast this with NC Representative Joe Wilson taking the opportunity during a televised Presidential address to inform the country what he thought of the President (yelling, “You lie” during a rare speech for a joint session of Congress during the ACA debate). Contrast again with TX Representative Jasmine Crockett’s request for clarification of whether describing fellow Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (who had since resigned because it turns out that Donald Trump is probably a child predator) as “bleach blonde, bad built, butch body” would be considered “engaging in personalities” which is against the rules for the minority party.

While we see example after example of this phenomenon, we still have not really discerned a cause. Let us consider with this the paradox of tolerance, especially in the context of American political discourse. Whether you’d like to think of America as a melting pot (a thought exercise that supposes that very different peoples come together, assimilate down the same path as a cohort and become one, homogeneous mass), or a salad bowl (in which all elements live among the others but maintain their own characteristics), it seems evident to me that the ability of the different people to live together in some sort of harmony rests with the ability of the society to exude and practice a level of tolerance. People will come and be different. At least leave them alone.

But how much is too much? This is the question asked by our MAGA cousins. If the differences lead to societal detriment, at what point do we abandon the failed regime of accepting any and all comers, regardless of their desire or ability to assimilate. Is this even a valid concern? The answer to that is a matter of opinion. What we must examine are facts. Let us come to understand that the paradox of tolerance is that we must allow maximum participation by all interested parties except the intolerant. There is in fact, no paradox here. It is an answerable assertion. The intolerant marginalize those eligible for marginalization. Who that is may change, but whoever it is cannot be left to the whims of those who would casually extinguish human life due to dislike of change.

But what of our Democrat cousins? Surely they’ve mounted vigorous defense against the forces of bigotry. After all “the Party of the Klan” has experienced a near universal turnaround since drunken traitor Nathan Forrest tilted at slavery’s stupid windmill right? Subscribe so you can join us next time and we can discuss what the Democrats see from the high road.