Anatomy of Political Doubletalk
Given the bluntness of the President, it seems easy to forget the way normal politicians talk. Despite the old adage “You can’t please all the people all the time,” it’s the goal of a politician to try. The stereotype of a politician who speaks from both sides of his mouth is well founded. Yet in the age of Trump, liberals view any dissent as a sign that Congressional Republicans will rebel.
Take as an example John McCain’s statement on the wiretap allegations. Liberal publications are amplifying this quote as a sign that Republicans are Fed Up with Trump’s antics. The quote itself though is, if anything, a tepid critique of Trump. Let’s take a look:
I think the president has one of two choices: either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve, because if his predecessor violated the law, President Obama violated the law, we have got a serious issue here to say the least.
Before we break this down, let’s consider what’s happening. The President of the United States accused his predecessor of ordering an illegal wiretap of his apartment. That happened in a single tweet, and he’s since moved on. There’s no evidence for the claim (as I’ve written, that isn’t required), but Congress is investigating anyway. With that background, let’s break this quote down.
Here is how liberals see what McCain said:
I think the president has one of two choices: either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve.
Here is how conservatives see it:
[H]is predecessor violated the law. President Obama violated the law. We have got a serious issue here to say the least.
John McCain has long enjoyed a reputation as The Republican That Democrats Like. Much of that comes from statements like these — but all that’s going on is political doubletalk. McCain threw out a little bit to appease the liberals and moderates, and a little bit of red meat for the conservatives. Note that he isn’t saying Congress shouldn’t investigate. He’s not saying these claims are unfounded. He’s saying that if Trump has evidence he should share it. The framing of this quote is “Obama may have spied on Trump. We should investigate the evidence.” By embracing this kind of mild critique, the liberals and moderates unwittingly move the window of discourse from “This is an outlandish statement” to “Let’s investigate.”
The window of discourse
There’s a concept in political science referred to as the “Overton Window.” The name comes from John P. Overton, who coined the theory while working for the right-wing Mackinac Center for Public Policy. In a primer on the theory, the Mackinac Center explains it this way:
Imagine, if you will, a yardstick standing on end. On either end are the extreme policy actions for any political issue. Between the ends lie all gradations of policy from one extreme to the other. The yardstick represents the full political spectrum for a particular issue. The essence of the Overton window is that only a portion of this policy spectrum is within the realm of the politically possible at any time. Regardless of how vigorously a think tank or other group may campaign, only policy initiatives within this window of the politically possible will meet with success.
They have a more visual gadget which allows a user to shift the window on a few policy issues. I’ve attached a screenshot to the left using education as an example. (Note the loaded right-wing language. A subtle way to shift the window toward their preferred agenda.)
Using the education example, the notion is that the highlighted positions are mainstream. Democrats, preferring strong public schools, push for stronger state curricula and heavy regulations on alternatives. Republicans, preferring privatization, push for “school choice” and charter schools. In deep red or blue districts, a politician may embrace a policy lying outside the window, but it puts them in the fringes of their party.
This is where think-tanks and doubletalk come in. Think-tanks publish materials designed to expand the conversation. CATO, for example, may release materials promoting school vouchers and tax credits. The Center for American Progress will pump out materials advocating stronger public school funding and the abolition of state tuition assistance for private schools. Their job is to shift public opinion and drag the Overton window in their direction.
This can also happen through subtle use of language.
By embracing this kind of mild critique, the liberals and moderates unwittingly move the window of discourse from “This is an outlandish statement” to “Let’s investigate.”
To return to the wiretapping claim, the Overton window started at “This is ridiculous” as the default position. As the story picked up traction, the tendency to see Both Sides As Valid kicked in. We’ve moved the window toward “Maybe he was wiretapped. He should release evidence.” Quotes like these from John McCain are not meant to signal to liberals that Congressional Republicans are ready to fight Trump. They’re meant to comfort liberals with the thought that they might. Meanwhile, they’re framing the conversation. “We need to look at the evidence” suggests that it’s reasonable to believe the wiretapping claim.
All this, and a single tweet is the only thing the President himself has said on the matter.
John McCain is not your friend
There are a multitude of things that make Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign memorable. Political scientists are still learning lessons from it. 2016 may have taught us that Obama’s “hope” narrative was more instrumental than his use of data analytics. When studying a well-oiled campaign machine such as that one, it’s easy to miss more mundane details. One of those details is how Obama dismantled McCain’s “Maverick” narrative.
In the world ASP (After Sarah Palin), it’s easy to forget the mood of Democrats during the early 2008 campaign. There was a feeling that, while Obama was preferred, as far as Republicans go McCain would be Fine. He wasn’t like Bush! He was a moderate! He’s so bipartisan! He bucks his party!
Obama and his campaign destroyed that idea. They brought out McCain’s voting record and exposed him for what he was and still is: A mediocre, party-line Republican Senator. He voted for most Bush policies, and was therefore just as culpable as Bush himself. This was more than a savvy attack against an opponent’s strength, it was a deconstruction of the very thing that McCain had built his brand on.
McCain succeeded in building that brand because of quotes like the one at the start of this article. For all his faults, McCain’s strength lies in saying something for everyone. Make no mistake, though — when the time comes to vote, John McCain will vote with the rest of his party.
Firebrands and moderates
Republicans have been far more successful at shifting the Overton window than Democrats. Take any given issue — gun legislation, for example. There was a time when a complete ban on handgun sales was a tenable political position. Now, the window has shifted so far in favor of guns that serious proposals in response to school shootings include arming teachers.
There are several reasons for this. One being that there are more right-wing think-tanks of influence than left-wing ones. That allows those ideas to pervade the media narrative. Another could be Democrats’ proclivity to shy away from the extreme ends of their party . See how Ted Kennedy’s Medicare for All plan was shunned for the public option (which, in the end, also failed) in the leadup to the Affordable Care Act. Or the long embrace by the party mainstream of civil unions until the moment that public opinion ticked to 51% in favor of gay marriage. I would posit that the Democrats, as a group, have too many moderates and not enough firebrands.
Quotes like these from John McCain are not meant to signal to liberals that Congressional Republicans are ready to fight Trump. They’re meant to comfort liberals with the thought that they might.
“Firebrands” — those who embrace positions at the end of or even beyond the Overton window — shift the discourse in obvious ways. Think Rand Paul, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopolous for the right and Bernie Sanders, Slavoj Žižek and Noam Chomsky for the left. They pump up various portions of the base on their pet issues, and advocate for positions thought to be outside the mainstream. By introducing those ideas to the conversation, they attempt to use their platforms to change the idea of what is acceptable policy. We now have a right-wing firebrand in the White House, which makes it harder to notice the role that moderates play in moving the window.
“Moderates” talk about bipartisanship and reigning in extremes. Lindsey Graham and John McCain are the go-to Republican examples at the moment. Democrats have Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp. These party members smooth things over with the opposition — assure them that “We haven’t all gone off the deep end.” They’ll say things which, at a glance, appear to be bucking their parties . But they’ll frame the things they say in a way which reinforces the direction the party would like to go. When the time comes, they’ll vote with their party most of the time, deviating only on symbolic decisions when their team can afford to shed a vote or two.
While moderates assure the public that things aren’t running wild, they never throw their party under the bus. They will never say outright that the firebrand is wrong. They prefer instead to offer a frame favoring the firebrand’s view, while speaking as though they condemn what the firebrand has to say. This all works well to shift the Overton window when, like the Republicans, your party has an abundance of firebrands. It doesn’t work as well when those firebrands are absent, as is the case with the Democrats.
Being mindful of Overton
Since the landslide losses during the Reagan era, the defining ideology of the Democratic Party is the “Third Way.” This approach operates from the idea that the United States is a centrist or even center-right nation. With that in mind, the Third Way avoids positioning itself on the left wing of popular discourse, believing that doing so will lose elections. They instead strive to find a “moderate position” that is “neither left nor right.” Another word for this is triangulation, and it’s the reason that Peak Liberalism uses a triangle as one of our symbols. When left wing politics triangulate, the result is a slow rightward drift of the Overton window.
Take for example the Clinton Presidency. Although the legacy President Clinton prefers is economic prosperity, he embraced right-leaning compromise. Rather than take a bold stand on issues such as LGBTQ people serving in the military, he proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His crime bill is responsible for the mandatory minimum sentences and harsh drug laws we know today. His welfare reform established harsh work requirements and devastated the system of public assistance. (Believe me, I know: I once worked in that sector.) Congressional Republicans accomplished things under Bill Clinton that they were never able to achieve under Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush. The Clinton family lives on to many as the face of the Third Way.
While Democrats have since moved to Clinton’s left on some social issues, the linguistic stylings of the Third Way remain in policy framing. (We should note that leftward shifts didn’t occur without effort from grassroots activists to shift public opinion.) Democrats frame their policy visions in ways they believe will appeal to Republicans. Rather than focus on a moral opposition to border walls or Republican changes to healthcare policy, they focus on the monetary cost of each. But this type of objection unwittingly does the work of the opposition for them. After all, if the main objection is cost, all we need to do is find a way to reduce the expenses, right? Soon, we’ll be arguing about whether to pay for the wall with a tax increase or a cut to social services.
When left wing politics triangulate, the result is a slow rightward drift of the Overton window.
In this modern era of resistance, I hope for a new approach. No longer can the ideals of compromise take priority above all else. It’s high time for the left to articulate a vision for America which stands in stark contrast to the free market reforms and social regression of Republicans. We should re-frame our arguments and center them on their own merit, not on what the right needs to hear. Republicans will always be better Republicans than the left will. Rather than focus on the gritty details of crafting a policy which pleases everyone, we need an ideal from which policy proposals will flow. Grassroots activists understand this. Movements like Black Lives Matter are gaining traction, and organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America are gaining membership. The left is no longer willing to settle for the leftmost idea in an increasingly right-wing Overton range. The focus is and must remain on changing the frame and shifting the bounds of what is acceptable policy. We’ll never get there as long as we take every tepid critique from a Republican moderate as a sign of progress.
