Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This podcast uses government documents to illuminate the workings of the American government, and offer context around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life.
Welcome to Civil Discourse. This podcast will use government documents to illuminate the workings of the American Government and offer contexts around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life. Now your hosts, Nia Rodgers, Public Affairs Librarian and Dr. John Aughenbaugh, Political Science Professor.
Nia Rodgers: Hey, Aughie?
John Aughenbaugh: Good morning, Nia. How are you?
Nia Rodgers: I'm excellent. How are you?
John Aughenbaugh: I'm lovely because we get to talk about windows.
Nia Rodgers: You know what? I actually wanted to say, who is this Overton guy and why doesn't he just close his window?
John Aughenbaugh: Why does he close his window?
Nia Rodgers: Side note for listeners. We don't always talk about government documents, but we try to relate these episodes in many ways to either government functions or government documents. But occasionally, what we also are talking about is political science terms. We've had some other professors come in discuss terminology. Today, Aughie's going to talk to us about a term that shows up a lot in government documents.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes it does.
Nia Rodgers: It gets mentioned a lot.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: It's a whole thing, the Overton window. I said to Aughie, what is the Overton window? Aughie in his typical Aughie fashion, got all excited and said, ''Nia. It's totally fascinating.'' He explained it to me and I was, we have to talk about that on the podcast because it really is very interesting.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. Well, before we get into the details of what is an Overton window.
Nia Rodgers: Are you going to tell us who Overton is?
John Aughenbaugh: I will. But even before that. Let's give a shout out because the topic itself got posed to Nia.
Nia Rodgers: That's true by Julie.
John Aughenbaugh: By one of our long standing listeners. She's very faithful.
Nia Rodgers: She's totally fabulous. She's a signed librarian.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. She's totally fabulous. Our good friend Julie who works with Nia at the VCU Cable library, deserves a shout out for getting this on our Overton window. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.
Nia Rodgers: It's very Meta.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. Before we get to who Joseph Overton was, because sadly he's no longer with us. The Overton window basically refers to public policy agenda setting. How do public policies get on the agenda of those with the government authority to create new policy?
Nia Rodgers: Basically where does a law or a policy germinate?
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Because Congress is not there just coming up with stuff. You're not tossing coins into a fountain and hoping to get visits from whatever to tell them what to write about. They're following this window.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. The window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time, thus the window metaphor. Because if a window is closed, it would suggest that a particular policy idea is not acceptable to the lion chair, the vast majority of the public.
Nia Rodgers: A hundred and fifty years ago, gay marriage window slammed shut.
John Aughenbaugh: It was never open.
Nia Rodgers: Perhaps with shutters open.
John Aughenbaugh: It was never open 150 years ago.
Nia Rodgers: But 15 years ago, that window was in the correct spot.
John Aughenbaugh: Then you saw government officials with the authority to act, being willing to go ahead and say, same sex marriage, deserves the same constitutional protection as this opposite sex marriage.
Nia Rodgers: One of the requirements is that the person who's talking about it has to be able to do something about it?
John Aughenbaugh: Well, in terms of the Overton Window, it talks about, again, is the policy idea acceptable to those who have the authority to create policy.
Nia Rodgers: If the public wanted something, but politicians didn't.
John Aughenbaugh: But that doesn't make sense according to the Overton window. For the Overton window, the window is open when a politician can go ahead and look at a policy idea and say, the majority of the public is willing to support this idea. Because for politicians, those with authority to act according to the Overton window won't act if the public won't support the idea. Why? Because politicians want to get what?
Nia Rodgers: Re-elected.
John Aughenbaugh: They want to get re-elected. The term Overton Window, the concept, if you will, is named after American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who proposed that an idea's political viability depends on whether or not it falls within a range. It has very little to do with a politician's individual preferences. A politician could think that a policy idea is bad, but they may support it if a majority of their voters do because they want to get what?
Nia Rodgers: Re-elected.
John Aughenbaugh: Re-elected.
Nia Rodgers: I see a theme.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: The flip of that is also true. They may want something, but if their voters don't want something, they're probably not going to support it openly.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: Because they again want to get re elected. It works in both directions.
John Aughenbaugh: Elections. That's right. In the window in that particular instance, Nia is either closed or barely open.
Nia Rodgers: Got you.
John Aughenbaugh: Overton described a process that was more free to "less free" in regards to the government getting involved. His core idea got shall we say, developed by another policy analyst, Joshua Trevino, who went ahead and attached labels to the various locations of a window.
Nia Rodgers: For thinking completely closed versus completely open?
John Aughenbaugh: Re-open, that's right.
Nia Rodgers: That's the spectrum we're talking about here. Where you open it an inch at night in the fall because you want the cool air, but you don't want to be frozen to death.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: But in the heat of the summer, you throw it all the way open at night to try to get as much air flow as you can.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: That's the spectrum we're talking about?
John Aughenbaugh: What Trevino did was he went ahead and gave us a range, a spectrum because we political scientists are very fond of spectrum.
Nia Rodgers: You-all don't really like the It's black and white.
John Aughenbaugh: White, no.
Nia Rodgers: Everything I ask you about, you're, well, but there's nuance.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: It depends, Nia. You answer every single question with it depends.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes, and my 12-year-old daughter hates me for that because she's just, could you just give me a yes or no.
Nia Rodgers: A yes or no. You're no, I can't because it depends.
John Aughenbaugh: It depends, and she was just, ''Ha ha, that's really funny. Are you not supposed to answer a question with?'' I'm like perhaps.
Nia Rodgers: Listeners, in case you're wondering, I one time asked Aughie if he was afraid of spiders, and he said, ''Well, not spiders. Well, except tarantulas. I'm afraid of tarantulas because they're really big.'' I was like, ''Wait, what?'' He's, ''It depends on the size of a spider, really, I suppose. If it's the size of my hand, yes, I'm afraid. If it's the size of a quarter, no, I'm not.'' I was like Okay, so there's no question to which there is a yes or no. Just putting it out there.
John Aughenbaugh: Here's the spectrum, if you will. The Trevino developed based on Overton's concept. Unthinkable. That refers to the window being completely closed. There is next to no public support for the proposal. Next, radical. There is some public support, but it is significantly less than 50%, or it is typically supported by the extremes on the political ideological spectrum. Here, the windows open just a crack. Next, acceptable. There's close to 50% support for a public policy proposal, but not enough for most politicians to risk their careers.
Nia Rodgers: They in many ways, are some of the most risk inverse first people.
John Aughenbaugh: Risk inverse people, my goodness, yes.
Nia Rodgers: They're very careful.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: About that thing. How open is the window at that point?
John Aughenbaugh: It's open, I would say probably a third maybe to 40%, but it's open just enough to where you think twice about sticking your arms and hands through it because you're afraid the windows going to come crashing over you.
John Aughenbaugh: The next is what Trevino labeled sensible. There might be more than 50% support in the polls, but significant and or important voting blocks might oppose it. Thus, though the window is open further, politicians are still cautious and they may want to wait.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: Now.
Nia Rodgers: It's not reading as a mandate yet. This window is not fully committed. It's open, but it's not committed?
John Aughenbaugh: In just a moment, the listeners, I'm going to walk us through the Overton window with a particular, shall we say, policy proposal to highlight how the window works.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: The fifth is something is popular. There is significant support for it in the public, and the politicians are actively debating and/or negotiating the terms of the policy.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: If you're a policy advocate, you want to get to this popular window opening stage. Because now you got those with policy authority debating its merits and or negotiating, if you will, what will be in the actual policy. That's a good thing. I just gave a thumbs up. Listeners you can't see that. Now, the policy is when the window is wide open. That's, if you will, the last stage or the last end of the spectrum, if you will.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: The window is wide open, the policy gets adopted because politicians recognize that their re-election efforts will only be furthered by adopting a policy in this area.
Nia Rodgers: They could be harmed by not adopting this policy.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: That's the other part.
John Aughenbaugh: The other part, yes.
Nia Rodgers: This window is wide open, and if you won't lean out and wave to the neighbors, you're in trouble.
John Aughenbaugh: You're in trouble. Yes. Basically, all the Window is saying is, here's the spectrum of acceptability of government politicians. It basically says politicians can only act within acceptable ranges. Again, here, the unit of analysis, is support within the public.
Nia Rodgers: Okay. Right, it doesn't matter if a whole bunch of other politicians like it.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Right, because they're not the ones who are re electing you?
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: It doesn't matter if the constituencies away from you. The Overton window for, me make sure I understand.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: If Virginia is making a policy, and people in California love it. That doesn't matter to Virginia politicians because they don't get elected by people in California.
John Aughenbaugh: That is correct.
Nia Rodgers: They get elected by people in Virginia, so it has to be your constituents.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: It doesn't have to be widely popular across the nation, or it, in fact, could be widely popular in other places, but if it's not where you are, then it doesn't count.
John Aughenbaugh: Then the window is.
Nia Rodgers: It's all about who can bring you back into office.
John Aughenbaugh: That's correct.
Nia Rodgers: Or continue your government employment as it were.
John Aughenbaugh: Now, the other thing I'm going to note, and I'm going to return to this point after we give our application example, Nia.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: The Overton window is descriptive. It's not normative. All Overton was doing was describing what he saw in regards to policy proposals getting on the agenda of decision makers.
Nia Rodgers: But he wasn't saying that's how it should be.
John Aughenbaugh: Should be.
Nia Rodgers: He was just saying it's how it is.
John Aughenbaugh: Okay.
Nia Rodgers: He was observing the effect.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Not saying and it's great that it's this way. Because okay.
John Aughenbaugh: This is an empirical model, not necessarily a normative model.
Nia Rodgers: I got you.
John Aughenbaugh: Nia, let's go through an example here of the Overton window. The example that I went ahead and mentioned as I was writing up some prep notes for this is the legalization of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana use.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: According to public opinion polls, as recently as the mid 1970s. Basically roughly 50 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the US public, and I'm talking about the voting age public here.
Nia Rodgers: Not 16-year-old and basement?
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah, right.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: Was against the legal use of marijuana.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: To put it in the terms of Trevino's build out of the Overton window. The window was open a crack. Those who were advocating for the legalized use of marijuana were oftentimes viewed as radical.
Nia Rodgers: Yes. When they say that somebody's way ahead of their time?
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. That's what they're talking about.
Nia Rodgers: Which you can only know, by the way, in hindsight.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: You can only know that they were way ahead of their time. At the time, their crack pots.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Then it turns out they can just foresee the future.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah. As recently as the mid 1990s, a solid majority of the US public was against legalization. But the percentage in favor of legalization was closer to 50%. Those who were against the legalization of marijuana typically were older population groups, and we know this, and we've discussed this in previous podcast episodes, older population groups in the United States vote more.
Nia Rodgers: Yeah.
John Aughenbaugh: Okay?
Nia Rodgers: They tend to be more conservative?
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: Older folks tend to be more conservative.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, using Trevinos typology, the idea was becoming acceptable, but the window wasn't open enough to generate much support among elected officials or even government officials in the executive branch that have the authority to regulate drugs.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: But then we move into the first decade of this millennium. The window opened wider, particularly among all groups within the public. But most importantly, older Americans and both sides of the ideological spectrum. Yes, Nia.
Nia Rodgers: I'm sorry. You can't see me listeners, but I was raising my hand to Aughie because.
John Aughenbaugh: Because all of a sudden.
Nia Rodgers: I started moving my hands like wait because I have because a question, or a comment, actually. Do you think that that has anything to do with the fact that that's boomers hitting the age where they need marijuana for pain relief?
John Aughenbaugh: Oh, my goodness, yes. Oh, yes.
Nia Rodgers: Like all of a sudden, they're like, Oh, this isn't so bad. In fact, this helps my arthritis and my bad back and my bad knees.
John Aughenbaugh: My glaucoma.
Nia Rodgers: It becomes more acceptable when it helps you.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: That's funny. I never realized that was the timeline.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Okay.
John Aughenbaugh: Now we're at a point to where at least on the state level, and remember listeners, particularly for our international listeners, public policy in the United States, is greatly impacted by federalism. Not only does the national government have the authority to regulate things like interstate commerce. By the way, most marijuana in the United States is interstate commerce because it gets.
Nia Rodgers: Grown in one place and sold in another.
John Aughenbaugh: But it can also be regulated by states because states have public health and safety powers.
Nia Rodgers: Right.
John Aughenbaugh: Known as the police power.
Nia Rodgers: In most states, medical marijuana is legal.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: But there's still some question as to regular marijuana use, and it is not legal at the federal level.
John Aughenbaugh: Federal level.
Nia Rodgers: It's a protected drug.
John Aughenbaugh: It's a Class A drug.
Nia Rodgers: The Overton window on that is probably opening to the wider view point where that's going to get removed at some point, I would assume in the next 10-15 years.
John Aughenbaugh: What's really interesting here in regards to marijuana as an application example of the Overton window is that now not only do you see support across the age groups of the voting population, but it has also has become acceptable to both liberals and conservatives.
Nia Rodgers: Right, because everybody's grandma has glaucoma.
John Aughenbaugh: When you legalize it, you now can go ahead and tax it.
Nia Rodgers: Yeah. That's true.
John Aughenbaugh: Okay.
Nia Rodgers: By controlling the strength, you can control the sales of it and all stuff like that.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. This is a really good example of the Overton Window, because Nia, just in our lifetime, what was once a policy idea where the window maybe not closed, but was barely open.
Nia Rodgers: Not in our lifetime, but in our parents lifetimes, slammed closed, because member refer madness in the whole.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah, 1950s and '60s.
Nia Rodgers: If you touch that, you'll die.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. You had police departments in this country that were giving talks in high schools, followed up by religious organizations across denomination.
Nia Rodgers: Just say no.
John Aughenbaugh: Okay.
Nia Rodgers: Yeah.
John Aughenbaugh: Okay.
Nia Rodgers: All of it.
John Aughenbaugh: Now we have, if it's not completely opened
John Aughenbaugh: The only reason why it's not completely opened is there's excessive paint on the window pane that's stopping it. For those of you who live.
Nia Rodgers: Who's ever lived in an old house. I'm trying to get that last inch.
John Aughenbaugh: It ain't going. It's got excessive paint. We painted over it a number of times. This is as far as it's going to go, but it's been a remarkable transformation, particularly in our lifetime, Nia?
Nia Rodgers: I want to note something that you put in the notes, because I think it's really important for people to remember. Lawmakers don't make the window. They are detectives. They detect the window and it's openness.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: They pull out a measuring tape, which is called a pole.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: They measure how open the window is it's a quarter inch. We're not even getting close to this thing versus, this pole is 75% in favor. This window is dang near open. Let's get on the bandwagon.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, for those among our listeners who have any kind of research methods background, the unit of analysis, as Nia just pointed out, is the public. How acceptable is a policy idea to the public as detected by elected officials and government officials who have the authority to act.
Nia Rodgers: They're basically going around taking everybody's temperature.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Rating their thumb and see which way the window blowing.
John Aughenbaugh: The window blowing. That's right.
Nia Rodgers: That's the Everton window it's not actually about public opinion. It's about politician's perception of public opinion.
John Aughenbaugh: Public opinion. That's right. Because again.
Nia Rodgers: He's just observing that politicians are cautious.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right. Even if a majority of the public is in favor of something, if an important voting block or constituency is against it, a politician might go ahead and say, I'm not taking that risk.
Nia Rodgers: Yeah, and that makes me crabby about it. I have to say, because I think that that's one of the seemingly to me, one of the drawbacks of this behavior is you're waiting for the public to come around when in some instances you should be a leader. You should say, this is the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do. What comes to mind for me is like ADA compliance. I shouldn't have to wait for the public to come around to the idea that we should be decent to people. We should make decently accessible buildings for folks regardless of their physical ability. That shouldn't be something that I have to wait for the public. I should be able to lead on that. I should be able to say, no, we're going to fix all these buildings so that folks that everyone can get into them because it's not right to have a public building that's not open to the public. Yet it doesn't seem to work that way. It seems like they wait for Zeitgeist. They wait for.
John Aughenbaugh: Listeners, what Nia is talking about is what political theorist Edmund Burke referred to as the classic dilemma of a government representative. Should they be a trustee, or should they be a delegate? A trustee is somebody who is an elected official who might actually vote against or push a policy idea that runs counter to, they're public because they're supposed to lead. Whereas the other conception is what Burke referred to as a delegate, an elected official who follows, if you will, the desires of their public. That's the classic tension in a democracy. Should our elected officials lead us, even if we're not ready to go? Or should they follow us?
Nia Rodgers: I have the answer.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. What?
Nia Rodgers: It depends.
John Aughenbaugh: It depends.
Nia Rodgers: I can see Burke's answer probably to that is it depends on right like how radical the idea is, how many people it would affect. Yeah, there's probably because you're right. There are things that I would not want somebody to lead me on. Like, I would not want, a policy where cars can only go 40 miles an hour. That would drive me bonkers. That would make me bananas. Considering level. The amount of long distance driving, I do.
John Aughenbaugh: On the other hand, according to government officials and those in the insurance industry, and for that matter, even those who work at emergency rooms.
Nia Rodgers: We'd be much better off. Of course, we were slower.
John Aughenbaugh: We would be a much safer society.
Nia Rodgers: Infinitely safer. People would die less. You'd have less fuel consumption. There are lots and lots of benefits, but I would struggle.
John Aughenbaugh: Oh, my goodness.
Nia Rodgers: I would struggle. I now understand why you always say it depends because my first thought was, well, it depends, Aggie.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, there are a number of criticisms over the Overton window.
Nia Rodgers: I was going to say, are there other things that make people crabby about the Overton window?
John Aughenbaugh: Many on the extremes of the ideological spectrum complain that the Overton window normalizes only moderate or mainstream policy ideas. They lament the fact that this tends to lead to incremental policy change that will be acceptable to the public. Therefore, acceptable to politicians.
Nia Rodgers: The key there being incremental. Whoa, slow your role. We don't have to make all of this all at once. Let's just do it a little bit at a time. People who want to go faster.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: It frustrates them.
John Aughenbaugh: In a given example, listeners, Nia and I both have friends who believe that the United States should use zero fossil fuel based energy because it's bad for the environment. It produces climate change, etc. They would like to see the federal government no longer subsidize big oil. They would like to see the government force changes to the types of cars that are made.
Nia Rodgers: They want to get rid of the National reserves. They perceive it also as a social justice issue. A lot of people are harmed in the oil industry and stuff like that, but they want to go cold turkey, and I'm like, Oh, I am not prepared to walk 180 miles.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, for that matter, according to public opinion polls, most Americans are not willing to go Cold Turkey. They lament that about the Overton window. Another criticism. There is a well known school of decision-making that's normative based. It's taught in business schools, it's taught in public administration programs, that's known as the rational comprehensive decision-making model. Advocates of this model complain that the Overton Window largely ignores aspiring to find the best policy solution to address a public policy problem. Because again, what would be best might not be acceptable to the public. Therefore, if you are a government decision maker, you might be aware of what would solve a public policy problem, but you look at public opinion polls. You take a look at important constituencies within your house district or your state, and you say, they're not going to buy this. They're not going to abide a 50% surcharge on their behavior, so we can encourage them to start stop acting that way, etc.
Nia Rodgers: You're going to get a milk toast version of that, that's acceptable to the public. As opposed to the best policy.
John Aughenbaugh: Now, another group that criticizes the Overton window is what's referred to as institutionalists. Institutionalist criticize the model as focusing on the wrong set of actors, ie the public, because it says government actors in the Overton window are merely responding to public cues.
Nia Rodgers: They're not influencing public cues.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: Which they could do. If you could figure out a way for a government official to be Instagram worthy, good luck with that. Then they could influence people's opinion to move towards a more open window.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right. Institutionalists forever remind us that government institutions, once they are created, can shape and mold the behavior and expectations of the public.
Nia Rodgers: Probably should in some ways.
John Aughenbaugh: I give the example when I teach institutionalism in my public policy class of how Social Security has molded and shaped the behavior of three consecutive generations of older Americans. It's at a point now to where even though we know statistically, demographically, that Social Security will more than likely be bankrupt in the 2030s. There is The Overton window on reforming Social Security in the United States, I would say, is open not at the radical level.
Nia Rodgers: I was going to say I wouldn't put my arm through it.
John Aughenbaugh: But it's like at the acceptable level, it's close to 50%. The problem is, those who are opposed to the reforms are the most active politically.
Nia Rodgers: Because they're the ones currently receiving.
John Aughenbaugh: Or will be receiving it in the next 5-10 years. We're talking about, baby boomers and Gen X.
John Aughenbaugh: Neither generation is known for being, shall we say, thoughtful of future generation.
Nia Rodgers: That's one way to put it. That was very diplomatic
John Aughenbaugh: I'm trying to be diplomatic here. Now, if there is one group that is supportive of the Overton window in what it describes it is democratic theory advocates. Democratic theory advocates say the Overton window has policymakers being very responsive to the majority. Again, if you think about it, it's only when the window is practically completely open that you're going to see policymakers support a policy. In democratic theory, majority will.
Nia Rodgers: That's right. The majority of people have decided a thing and if you believe in democracy, it will be.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes, and when I describe the Overton window in my policy class, I can see a few heads nod from students who are like, yes, we have responsive decision makers. I'm like, yeah, but what if the public is wrong?
Nia Rodgers: Exactly. That was my first thought. You and I, your next cynical. That's right.
John Aughenbaugh: Next cynical, right?
Nia Rodgers: Really you want these bunch of chuckleheads making the decisions? No, I want somebody better than that. It's like that whole thing where people say, I want to elect somebody I want to have a beer with. I'm like, no, I want to elect somebody who knows what they're doing. I don't care whether I can drink beer with them or not. That's not relevant to me. What's relevant to me is does this person have any experience? Are they capable of doing the job?
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah. Whether or not I can sit down and have a beer or break bread with them and a meal. Let's face it. If they're hanging out with me, that's not a really good use of their time as far as I'm concerned. I'm like really.
Nia Rodgers: Well, seriously that bar is pretty low. Can I have a beer with you? Well, I've had beers in bars with lots of strangers does that help? But I do think that you're right that there's a tension there in terms of, even if something was really good policy, it might not get adopted because, "the public is not ready yet." That was the argument that was made in the South against civil rights.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: For years and years, the argument was, well, the South is not ready. I'm a proud Southerner but somebody should have said to the South, you all need to step up and get ready. The time is well passed. It should not have taken 100 years for people to be able to vote, to be able to do.
John Aughenbaugh: Or even think Nia how long it took for many school districts to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown versus Board.
Nia Rodgers: Exactly, 20 years. In some instances, 20, 25 years. That's crazy.
John Aughenbaugh: Now, as I also tell some of my more idealistic students, if you go into policy work after you graduate from VCU and you're advocating for the most sound policy solution to a policy problem, understand that it's not going to get adopted if the windows not wide open. I don't care if it has the best science. I don't care if it is economically feasible. You have to remember that government officials, and Nia, you mentioned this earlier in the podcast. Many government officials are risk adverse.
Nia Rodgers: If you want to put it in a polite way that they would like versus calling them chickens, which is what Aughie and I are calling them. You could say that they have, "enlightened self interest."
John Aughenbaugh: Sure.
Nia Rodgers: Their self interest is in being re-elected.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Because all political creatures who are elected. Now, the not elected creatures, and when we talk about that with middle management and government, they have a little more leeway because they don't have to worry as much about that.
John Aughenbaugh: On the other hand, if you are a career bureaucrat, for instance, in the EPA and you go to successive hearings in front of an Appropriations Committee in Congress and you advocate something that's going to cost the federal government $10 trillion.
Nia Rodgers: You're going to get fired.
John Aughenbaugh: After a while members of Congress are going to tune you out and your boss will stop sending you to Capitol Hill.
Nia Rodgers: If they don't fire you they will just stop sending you to Capitol Hill. It's true. You're right. The system works against that.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, if nothing else, the Overton window in many ways is empirically sound in terms of what it describes. Even if normatively we would like to see the changes, empirically.
Nia Rodgers: It's that. It's just how it works.
John Aughenbaugh: It's just how it works.
Nia Rodgers: It's human nature. What Overton is describing is political human nature.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: He's not saying it's good or bad. He's just saying, this is fact. This is what happens.
John Aughenbaugh: Very few government officials get rewarded for being ahead of the window being opened. Very few do.
Nia Rodgers: When they do, there's backlash?
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: It swings in the other direction. What I think is fascinating is all the number of articles that talk about moving the Overton window, and I'm like, what you're talking about is moving people and people's opinions to get them to do a thing. Can you do that? Sure. It can be done but it takes concerted effort to do that because unless there is already a germination of political will there, getting people to go completely into something that they would not normally even consider, it's really hard to do.
John Aughenbaugh: To your point Nia, it just reminded me of something that you and I have discussed off recording a number of times. The Biden administration being just completely flummoxed by the fact that there are so many indicators that the US economy is doing well but the percentage of Americans.
Nia Rodgers: Who say it's not it's like 80% or something. It seemed terribly high percentage. It's not that high but it's pretty high.
John Aughenbaugh: It's pretty high.
Nia Rodgers: They're like, no, look it's getting better but people don't feel it.
John Aughenbaugh: They don't feel it and until you can go ahead and get them to change their opinion, it doesn't surprise me that most of the acceptable, if you will, economic policy initiatives that we are seeing debated by Congress or being considered by the executive branch are small and incremental in nature because, again, until the public can get to a point to where they say, well, the economy is doing well and maybe it's high time that we consider X proposal to redirect wealth in the United States. You got a whole bunch of Americans who are like, you can go ahead and talk about redirecting wealth all you want but I'm still suffering.
Nia Rodgers: I'm still living paycheck to paycheck, so I don't know who you're talking to because it's not me. You're talking to Bill Gates. You're talking to Jeff Bezos. You're not talking to me.
John Aughenbaugh: Again, whether we like what it describes, I think there's a whole bunch of truth in what it describes.
Nia Rodgers: And in how it functions.
John Aughenbaugh: Particularly, and I'm glad you made the distinction between elected officials and non-elected government officials but I haven't met an elected official yet.
Nia Rodgers: I don't care about what the voters say. I don't care about what they do in the next election.
John Aughenbaugh: Really?
Nia Rodgers: One of them said no politician ever.
John Aughenbaugh: Typically, we only see that thought process by a politician who has decided to quit.
Nia Rodgers: To go spend more time with their family, which is the euphemism for credit. When you know you're not going to be re-elected, you say things like, I'm going to go spend more time with my family.
John Aughenbaugh: By the way I think X policy proposal is a fabulous idea.
Nia Rodgers: Because now you can't do anything to me.
John Aughenbaugh: I'm just like, well, wow I'm glad to see that you were able to go ahead and find some internal fortitude.
Nia Rodgers: Does Overton apply to the Supreme Court?
John Aughenbaugh: I think for some of the justices, yes. Those justices who spend time thinking about what will be the impact of their rulings, and how it harms or doesn't harm the court's legitimacy. Now, who I don't think the Overton window really affects are justices on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. I don't think Sonia Sotomayor Clarence Thomas, think all that much in terms of what does the majority of the population are they willing to accept.
Nia Rodgers: Got you.
John Aughenbaugh: But for folks like John Roberts.
Nia Rodgers: I was going to say J Rob.
John Aughenbaugh: Elena Kagan, I think, to a certain extent, Breck Kavanagh. They are concerned. But the court has something that the political branches of government don't have, which is.
Nia Rodgers: No reelection.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right. They have judicial independence. It's really easy for Clarence Thomas to say, I don't care what the Supreme Court's decision about the Second Amendment may mean in terms of gun violence because.
Nia Rodgers: That's not my problem.
John Aughenbaugh: I don't run for reelection.
Nia Rodgers: That carry on is not my problem. My problem is the problem in front of me, which is the case that I'm looking at now. It is not my problem to make policy.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: Because theoretically, the judges are not making policy.
John Aughenbaugh: It's not really policy. But it's also what allowed the Warren Court to say in Brown versus Board, school segregation is unconstitutional.
Nia Rodgers: We don't care that the South doesn't like it. Suck it up butter cut.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: In some ways, they get to move things forward and in some ways, they don't because of that.
John Aughenbaugh: Think about your example much earlier in this podcast, Nia. We were talking about same sex marriage. It was the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell versus Hodges, where the Court said, prohibitions on same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. At the time the Court issued that ruling, well over 30 states had prohibitions on that. But it's independence allowed the justices to go ahead and say, who cares if the overwhelming majority of the states think that same sex marriage is wrong or bad, or whatever.
Nia Rodgers: The Constitution does not speak to the genders of the people involved. It speaks to.
John Aughenbaugh: We don't have to worry about running for reelection, so we're not concerned about the Overton window.
Nia Rodgers: As far as we're concerned, any two people can make a marriage contract go forth and do what you want to do.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
Nia Rodgers: The Overton window can be a positive for people in the sense of, that's not the way I want to phrase it. The justices can be independent of the Overton window and do things that actually benefit a minority of folks, because at the time this many people believe something but the justices say, and you're right. That's legal. That's constitutional. You can do that. Then it does open that window a little bit more, and maybe it helps open that window for politicians.
John Aughenbaugh: Well, because it then can give elected officials legal and constitutional cover to ignore the majority. To go ahead and on their own push the window open. But Overton was very explicit. The Overton window is about those in government positions with the authority to make decisions.
Nia Rodgers: I just realized something.
John Aughenbaugh: What's that?
Nia Rodgers: The Supreme Court is an intervening variable.
John Aughenbaugh: The court can be an intervening variable. Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Nobody understands that reference. We talked about that in another video.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: But anyway thank you, Aughie. This is really interesting. I understand why Julie is fascinated by it. This idea that there's a sweet spot, and you have to hit the sweet spot in order to get policy done.
John Aughenbaugh: Well, and in particular non-political science types, particularly those in the hard sciences, the business school, they really struggle with how policy decisions are made.
Nia Rodgers: Because it's not logical.
John Aughenbaugh: Well, they're not logical. They're not rational comprehensive. What do you mean?
Nia Rodgers: Hey, that's a really nice risk analysis you made for me, but I don't care because the public's not ready yet.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah, the public's not ready yet. Those with science backgrounds that go to work for congressional committees or on congressional staffs oftentimes struggle with this.
Nia Rodgers: Yeah, because they've got a logical progression of, this and this, and this should be the outcome of that, and you're like, oh, and see if the world really worked that way, it would be wonderful.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah, even just defining what is the policy problem. For scientists, they can clearly define a problem. Members of Congress can't.
Nia Rodgers: No, they can't. If you wonder, watch them interview Big Tech.
John Aughenbaugh: But even if they were smart enough, politicians have to take into account multiple constituencies, and multiple groups of people will take a look at a policy problem and say, no, wait a minute, that ain't the problem. This is the problem.
Nia Rodgers: Exactly.
John Aughenbaugh: Let's go back to the example of legalizing marijuana. For many politicians, legalizing marijuana for medicinal use was less problematic than legalizing it for recreational use. But for those who are advocating for the complete legalization of marijuana, it made no sense to make such a distinction.
Nia Rodgers: Well, and it makes no sense to make such a distinction. It doesn't hurt sick people, but it could hurt not sick people.
John Aughenbaugh: Sick people. Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Like, what are you talking about?
John Aughenbaugh: I've had students who've taken my policy class, whose background is science. They're just completely bewildered that what do you mean you can't clearly define a policy problem? What do you mean you can't identify the best solution? Yes, we can. I'm like, we can if we operated in a vacuum.
Nia Rodgers: But desegregating schools does not fix systemic racism.
John Aughenbaugh: No.
Nia Rodgers: Like bigger problem.
John Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
Nia Rodgers: This is a small chunk of a much larger problem.
John Aughenbaugh: It can contribute to addressing systemic racism.
Nia Rodgers: But it's certainly not fix.
John Aughenbaugh: All of it. Likewise, there are any other number of policy examples to where we could go ahead and say, yeah, that was a big step, but it still doesn't address the much larger problem of X. Most politicians are like, I'm not worried about that much larger problem. I'm worried about what my constituents are willing to accept because in 2, 4 or 6 years, I'm up for what?
Nia Rodgers: Reelection.
John Aughenbaugh: Reelection, and you can call it enlightened self interest, or you can just go ahead and you'll bluntly call it, hey, they want to keep their job. As I tell students, most of us, if we find a job we like, we make all compromises. We accept all things we told herself we would never accept because we want to keep a job we like.
Nia Rodgers: A man will believe anything if his paycheck depends on it.
John Aughenbaugh: Sure. It's career, his legacy, whatever motivates them, and until we elect completely benighted better angels of our nature individuals to government.
Nia Rodgers: Which the system will probably promptly ruin.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Because we'd have to redo the entire but that is the talk for another episode.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Let's leave it there as we're going to assume we're not going to reform politics currently, and this is how we're going to view it is through Overton window.
John Aughenbaugh: Listeners, I apologize for that extreme dose of cynicism here at the end of the episode. But anyways.
Nia Rodgers: But it is a good way to look at politicians' behavior.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes.
Nia Rodgers: Why are they doing what they're doing? We'll stop and look at whatever the window is and where it is compared to where the public is, and that should explain why they're behaving the way they are behaving.
John Aughenbaugh: That's right.
Nia Rodgers: Cool.
John Aughenbaugh: Once again, shout out to Julie. excellent suggestion for a podcast episode, and for our listeners, if you have other suggestions.
Nia Rodgers: Please email us.
John Aughenbaugh: Please email us. Nia and I always like, one, hearing from our listeners and two, I think this podcast over its existence has demonstrated we are curious about all government documents, processes, phenomenon.
Nia Rodgers: That's right. Everything about the government is interesting to us.
John Aughenbaugh: Yes. Thanks, Nia.
Nia Rodgers: Thank you, Aughie.
You've been listening to Civil Discourse brought to you by VCU Libraries. Opinions expressed are solely the speaker's own and do not reflect the views or opinions of VCU or VCU Libraries. Special thanks to the Workshop for technical assistance. Music by Isaak Hopson. Find more information at guides.library.vcu.edu/discourse. As always, no documents were harmed in the making of this podcast.