Something that's been troubling me for some time is why conservatives are so successful in twisting support away from popular, common-sense progressive ideas. And even when their strategic moves were exposed and analyzed, they had a momentum, a political power, that seemed impossible to stop and reverse (at least to me). Until now...
One of the biggest losers for progressives has been the abortion issue. We not only lost significant ground, but it also became a lightning rod bringing out a super-charged conservative base.
Maybe this is common knowledge here, but today I came across something that seems like a winning strategy to me. If you've seen this strategy used or know why this is not as helpful as it seems to me, it would be great to move the thinking forward (even if it is just me who gets moved).
In the Democracy Journal, Jessica Arons lays out a strategy for reversing the trend in conservative restrictions on abortion (From pro-choice to pro-coverage). Because conservatives so successfully co-opted the politics of abortion rights and turned them into a super-charger for their base, the idea that we could push this swing back to the left intrigued me.
In the article, Jessica discusses the way conservatives used the Overton window to drag the debate to the right in support of their anti-abortion agenda.
The idea behind this strategy is known as the Overton window. Joseph Overton, who was the vice president of the conservative Mackinac think tank, posited that for any given issue, there is a narrow window of politically acceptable policy solutions. The window shifts not when the policy options change, but when society’s perception of what is politically tolerable changes. The way to shift the window toward one’s preferred policy solutions is to promote measures that fall outside the window until they become familiar enough to move inside the window.
The Overton window for abortion policy is now positioned much farther to the right than any of us would have imagined it going 20-30 years ago. It's so far to the right that insurance plans available through ACA exchanges are unable to provide abortion coverage as part of a subsidized premium; and many states now restrict private health insurance coverage for abortion. And conservatives are working to similarly restrict contraception from insurance plans receiving public funding.
In the article she clearly outlines the politics that dragged us to this point. (Recommended reading if you're interested in how we let this slip so far to the right.) And a major part of the strategy included starting with a broad set of changes, testing the waters repeatedly, then eventually accepting a subset that helped move the window incrementally to the right. (Rinse and repeat.)
Ok, so do we simply use the same Overton window approach and tug back in the opposite direction? Hmmm... Well, remember how conservatives were able to co-opt the abortion issue into a conservative base super-charger? If we just tug harder on the opposite side, won't that give them more ammunition for their base super-charger? It might. Anyway, I think we've tried that approach unsuccessfully and it just hasn't worked.
So, what do we do? Jessica proposes that we shift the discussion from "pro-choice" to "pro-coverage". Instead of making the discussion about abortion rights, we focus on how current laws/policies discriminate against low income and disadvantaged women. She uses the Hyde Amendment as a primary example.
With its disproportionate impact on low-income women and women of color, the Hyde policy is fundamentally unjust, both economically and racially. Moreover, its harmful effects on these women, along with immigrant women, disabled women, and a host of other marginalized populations, can be seen across the full spectrum of progressive policy concerns: The woman in need of abortion coverage is often the same woman trying to secure unemployment benefits, escape a violent relationship, pay her spiking heating bill, or care for the children she already has.
The public justification for these discriminatory policies is protecting religious/moral beliefs of some Americans by not allowing their tax dollars to be used, in any way, to fund abortions. This kind of religious protection argument is being used to disguise a variety of discriminatory policies/laws. But the public is wising up to this ploy. And we should hit it hard, clarifying that we all have our tax dollars used in ways that we (often strongly) disagree with.
Compromise for the common good is how society works. We all have strongly held beliefs and they are often in disagreement with many of our fellow citizens' beliefs. Government needs to maintain fairness and protect the public trust as best it can. It cannot be twisted to hurt already disadvantaged citizens simply to serve others' strongly held beliefs.
To me reading this article lead to an AHA moment. Progressives should be able to find similarly compelling approaches for most, if not all, progressive policies. The reason they are progressive policies is because they are in the overall best interests of the future of our country and its citizens. They all have valid, rational reasons. We just need to identify the most politically compelling/effective approach and start applying a similarly sustained, patient approach to move the Overton window.
Maybe trying the same technique for moving the window - starting with a broad set of proposed changes outside the current Overton window, repeatedly testing until a subset is accepted - will not work. It is likely conservatives will spot their own technique being applied back at them and dig in their heels. So, we may need a different process to shift the window.
But identifying how to frame the policies we promote is at least a start. Frame them in ways that don't simply tug back when the policy battle lines are entrenched. Find the "pro-coverage" equivalent for these policies and then work on the Overton window.