Political scientists have a concept called the Overton Window which refers to the range of policies that are politically palatable to mainstream politicians and the majority of the population at any given time. It is sometimes invoked to suggest that activists must be “realistic” in their political demands. The Overton Window has its uses—but also its limitations: while the proper disposition in politics requires that we be realistic about what the state can and cannot achieve, pragmatism can often be too limiting. Last fall, Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule tweeted, “Myopic pragmatism undershoots what is actually achievable.” The problem with the Overton Window is ultimately that we do not know the precise limits of what is achievable because possibility is not a static thing. In fact, the way to move the Overton Window is to relentlessly talk about what we want from our polity.
Many politicians have said that they cannot be expected to lead on abortion or other vital issues, that the culture must first soften its hardened heart to vulnerable human life, since “politics is downstream from culture.” Before politicians are willing to expend political capital on what might be a futile attempt to change the law on abortion—even at the periphery with an incremental bill—the pro-life movement, they say, must change the hearts and minds of some critical mass of the public. Such protestations are not only classic buck-passing, but more importantly they employ the wrong water metaphor: politics and culture are less like a river and more like the tide, with the direction of influence changing at various times. Culture affects politics and politics affects culture.
The law is a teacher, and sometimes teachers lead and sometimes they follow. We need the law to do both. It is no accident, as Marxist historians say, that the more Justin Trudeau and his Liberals talk about abortion and the less pro-life MPs are willing to talk clearly about the issue, the more ingrained abortion becomes in the political, legal, and medical cultures. It is no coincidence that progressive social experiments run wild when putative conservatives and Christians are silent about the inhumane rot in both our culture and our politics. (When was the last time you heard a pastor or other spiritual leader speak out against sexual sin, pornography, or the twin evils of abortion and euthanasia?)
Of course, we are thankful for politicians who are willing to speak up at all about these issues, even if it is only at the margins. But we must not settle for such morsels. Nor, like those less courageous politicians, can we pass the buck and blame political and religious leaders who are often too silent or too meek in challenging the Culture of Death. We must speak forcefully, firmly, and frequently about the Culture of Life that we want, one in which the inherent human dignity of every individual is respected. We must normalize talking about what is wrong in the world and not hide behind euphemisms or equivocations. And we must ignore those who say that the society we want back has been relegated to the dustbin of history – that the clock cannot be moved backward. Why not? The progressive vandals who destroyed what is Good, True, and Beautiful in Canada, are constantly manipulating the proverbial hands of the clock in arbitrary ways, sometimes by degrees, sometimes holus-bolus, but always with an eye to their own agenda, to the place where they want to move the body politic.
Such changes are sometimes done incrementally; sometimes they are done in singular, sweeping acts. Unfortunately, the unwitting “allies” who support these changes do not share the ultimate “end-game,” of the most radical social activists who dupe the public by boiling the proverbial frog in steadily warming water. We, however, do not have the luxury of lying; we are committed to living in the Truth.
Many social and political changes that we take for granted now seemed outright impossible at first. Sympathetic, sober-minded realists advised those who fought against slavery and for civil rights that they needed to be modest in their expectations. And, at those times, limiting slavery or advancing civil rights did seem like utter nonsense. In each case, the idealists prevailed.
We have no quarrel with the compromises that are sometimes necessary to get the ball rolling for legislative, regulatory, and other changes. Bargaining is part of the sometime grimy world of politics, and compromises should be judged on whether they are necessary at the moment and whether they accord with Right Reason. Our argument, instead is against settling for compromises, announcing a modest gain as a final goal, and for treading any our advances as compromises instead of what they are: partial victories. More importantly, ours is an argument for being bold, for enlarging the vision of what we should ask of our politics and our country. Incomplete and incremental changes are only bad if we were to lose a sense of our own ideals and ultimate direction.
It is essential that Christians and others of goodwill approach politics with prudence, and sincere humility about what government and civil society can achieve. But it is also imprudent to ignore our vision of the common good in its all of its beauty and fullness. We should talk about ending abortion, completely reversing the euthanasia license, banning the addictive substance of pornography and the degrading industry which produces it, and the proper scope of work and consumption; we should celebrate the goods of marriage and family life, the sanctity of the human person created in God’s image, and the need for belief in the Transcendent to understand and cherish these truths. Whether or not our vision is “practical”—achievable in our current political and cultural climate—is unknowable; but it is certain that, if we do not keep the flame of goodness and flicker of truth alive, it will only be more difficult for future generations to turn around a decadent society and state. We have it within our power to enlarge the Overton Window; we should not settle for the limited options currently in its view. Idealism, in the end, is thus the most practical political strategy, since only the idealists move the window in which the pragmatists operate.
