[IP] more on Question for IP
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Beck <cbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 21, 2006 12:20:57 AM JST
To: hugh crawford <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven Davidson
<SDavidson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
Killey <paul@xxxxxxxxx>, Maris <mfogels@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Question for IP
Greetings!
Thank you so much for your helpful replies, I will definitely follow
up on them.
Joe Crawford from the list reminded me of what I was looking for -
something
called the "Overton Window":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7504
"In addition to being dependent on the ideas that form the boundaries
of the political climate, politicians are also known to be
self-interested and desirous of obtaining the best political result
for themselves.[2] Therefore, they will almost always constrain
themselves to taking actions within the "window" of ideas approved of
by the electorate. Actions outside of this window, while theoretically
possible, and maybe more optimal in terms of sound policy, are
politically unsuccessful. Even if a few legislators were willing to
stick out their necks for an action outside the window, most would not
risk the disfavor of their constituents. They may seek the good of
those who elected them, and even the good of the state or nation as a
whole, but in pursuing the course they think is best, most will
certainly take into account their political future. This is the heart
of the Overton window theory.
"So, if a think tank's research and the principles of sound policy
suggest a particular idea that lies outside the Overton window, what
is to be done? Shift the window. Since commonly held ideas, attitudes
and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the
"window," a change in the opinions held by politicians and the people
in general will shift it. Move the window of what is politically
possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next
great popular and legislative rage."
+++++++++++
Again, thank you for your kind and prompt responses.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher Beck - http://pacanukeha.wordpress.com
Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending
those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would
indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile. -- Justice Warren in U.S. v. Robel
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/