Climate change, healthcare, education, deregulation, tax cuts, the military budget and accountability, manufacturing, immigration, criminal justice, the justice system, whistleblowers, etc.
There are entire states now insisting that child rape victims carry their rapist's baby to term, threatening any doctor that may assist even in other states. That's insane, and it's what "the right" have been systematically working toward for decades.
The planet is on track for immolation; irreversible and catastrophic global warming, but the Overton Window doesn't allow protestors to throw paint on the perspex screen over famous artwork.
Apologies if that wasn't actually a serious question; Poe's Law, yaknow?
The way your reply is phrased, I'm not sure if you're talking specifically about HN's Overton window, or the more general political climate.
On the general political climate, I don't think the right has really changed their positions on most of those issues, except a bit for the military budget recently where some on the left and right have almost flipped. Edit: and I should mention that younger Republicans have shown more concern about climate change.
On HN's political lean, I can see an argument why it might have started out more left, given its silicon valley heritage which then may have grown to reflect the more general population as its popularity grew. Having perused here for 12 years, I recall always seeing a diversity of opinions on all of those topics though, including the ones you list. Then again, my memory ain't what it used to be.
> I don't think the right has really changed their positions on most of those issues
The facts have come in more and more regarding the effect of deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, illegal and self-destructive wars, and especially climate change.
So, conservatives have had to swerve the Overton Window very hard indeed to maintain such positions in the face of recorded reality.
And that all filters through to here, eventually, in countless ways. The jarring difference between the reality we need and the reality people are cynically pummeled into believing has ripple effects across culture, here and elsewhere.
I don't see what the factual status of any of these policies have to do with the topic at hand. They're immaterial to the question of whether the Overton window has shifted right.
From what I gather, you seem to agree that the right has been and continues to argue for the same policies now as they did decades ago, and for basically the same reasons, and therefore, you must agree that they have not shifted the Overton window on those issues. The only issue they arguably expanded slightly rightward was abortion, and only very recently.
On most other issues it seems like the Overton window expanded to the left while the right side has not changed much.
Does it even make sense to say the Overton window shifted one way or another? The claim is meaningless without also including whether the window widened, narrowed or stayed the same width. The whole point of the window is that it defines the left and right bounds of acceptable discourse. So does "shift right" mean that both the left and right edges shifted to the right? Or that the left stayed in place while the window widened to the right? Or that the right stayed in place while the window narrowed toward it?
I would say that the window has shifted on at least the following topics:
* vigilantism and militias - the Jan 6 rioters, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse are widely celebrated in right-wing media, I don't think this really happened in the early 2000s
* overt racism - racism scandals from the 90s/2000s, like the Willie Horton ad or the "Macaca" incident seems rather tame compared with what I've seen from figures like Trump or Tucker Carlson.
* the mainstream Republican view is that the Democratic party manipulated the election results and 2020 was a fraudulent election, I don't remember anything like the mainstream acceptance of this kind of conspiracy theory after the 2008 or 2012 elections.
> * vigilantism and militias - the Jan 6 rioters, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse are widely celebrated in right-wing media, I don't think this really happened in the early 2000s
I don't think Republicans changed their stance on militias. This has always had conservative support because it's literally in the constitution.
As for rioting, I suppose it depends on how you frame the Overton window. The left has always tolerated and even justified rioting, eg. I remember way back to the 1992 LA riots over Rodney King. So "rioting over perceived injustice" has always been within the existing Overton window, it's just new that the right did it this time.
As for vigilantism, I dunno. Self-defense and gun rights has been a core value in Republican circles since forever. Agree with the framing or not, self-defense is how those cases are presented in conservative circles.
> * overt racism - racism scandals from the 90s/2000s, like the Willie Horton ad or the "Macaca" incident seems rather tame compared with what I've seen from figures like Trump or Tucker Carlson.
Hmm, maybe. I've found there's too much silly pearl-clutching with Trump and Carlson generally speaking, but I'm not familiar enough with the racism scandals in that time period to compare.
I just watched the Willie Horton ad on Youtube and read about what happened, and I'm not sure why that should be considered racist. Horton was probably the worst outcome from that policy, and he happens to be black. Using the worst outcome of a policy your opponent fought for seems like fair game to me.
> * the mainstream Republican view is that the Democratic party manipulated the election results and 2020 was a fraudulent election, I don't remember anything like the mainstream acceptance of this kind of conspiracy theory after the 2008 or 2012 elections.
Democrats played up Bush v. Gore as a stolen election.
Democrats also played up the 2016 election being stolen by Russia, and the President's practically treasonous collusion with that foreign state to do so.
I think you're being way too easy on the Democrats here. Furthermore, Republicans have been trying to restrain voting rights for years with talk of fraudulent votes. Talk of "stolen elections" has definitely been within the Overton window for some time now.
I mean everything has been around but we're talking about mainstream acceptance. Trump said that the elections were stolen and the violent riots were justified. What major figure from either party supported anti-government violence before?
Voting fraud was a talking point going back at least to Von Spakovsky under Bush but this was a minor figure who wasn't taken very seriously at the time. Now it's supported by the party leadership.
The moderate Republican party elites were in control up to the tea party movement. This was what the tea party itself was saying: our views are not being represented. Mottos like "America First" and "Drain the Swamp" were relegated to third-party candidacies like Buchanan 2000.
BTW there has been movement on the left too, I'm focusing on the right because that's what you asked about. The 1990s were a moment of remarkable elite consensus with the centrist DLC in control on the left and the more moderate GOP factions on the right. This led to memes about "both parties are the same" like "Kang and Kodos" (1990) and "Giant Douche vs Shit Sandwich" (2004). Since then American politics have polarized and the parties have moved much further apart. The concept of an "Overton window" doesn't even make as much sense anymore, because many people take offense at mainstream views of the other side (e.g. "trans women are women" or "Jan 6 was justified because the 2020 election was stolen by Biden")
Transgender healthcare and transgender existence as a whole is a particularly overt and luminescent example. We have always been seen as weird, but for decades I could generally expect to be able to go to a doctor and have it covered by insurance. Now in some states the government and its police forces would imprison that doctor for providing treatment and imprison my wife for teaching in a K12 school. We didn't have a lot of explicit rights in the past but we also didn't have these kinds of massive targeting and demonization campaigns by elected officials.
> We have always been seen as weird, but for decades I could generally expect to be able to go to a doctor and have it covered by insurance.
This might be a good example, but I admit that the insurance situation in the US is so bizarre that I have no intuitions on this, re: insurance covering gender transition. Is insurance no longer covering it or something? If so, is this a legislated restriction?
It is true that states are banning this kind of care for minors, but consent around minors is pretty tricky, and some people like to ignore the nuances for simple soundbites.
It's not clear cut because it's a sort "new" topic, so it's hard to gauge where conservatives stood. For instance, abortion is a clear example of something that was "settled" in a sense and almost everyone had moved on, but the GOP blew it open again. Clear rightward shift of the Overton window.
I agree the pushback on books and school topics might count towards a rightward shift on the Overton window. Banning the teaching of evolution has always kind of been a hobby horse of the extreme right though, so not totally unheard of. It is more widespread, so kind of fits the mould of abortion.
> We didn't have a lot of explicit rights in the past but we also didn't have these kinds of massive targeting and demonization campaigns by elected officials.
Agreed, but we've also seen a rapid demographic shift over the past 10-15 years [1]. I think the massive leftward push on these issues over the past 10 years, coupled with an alarming lack of caution on these demographic shifts, has led to a corresponding rightward pushback because of numerous preventable failures.
> This might be a good example, but I admit that the insurance situation in the US is so bizarre that I have no intuitions on this, re: insurance covering gender transition. Is insurance no longer covering it or something? If so, is this a legislated restriction?
"Insurance is arbitrarily evil" can be used to explain many phenomenona in the US, but it is increasingly legislative, yes.
> It is true that states are banning this kind of care for minors, but consent around minors is pretty tricky, and some people like to ignore the nuances for simple soundbites.
There's not any nuance to it, they're straight up taking consent away from kids. The kid knows and consents to it, there's doctors and therapists and medical staff willing to help, and parents (though they shouldn't matter either way) are often glad to sign off on it too. The only entity not "consenting" is the state, and it's none of its business in the first place. Taking away someone's right to say "yes" is just as bad as taking away their "no." I have friends who would have made it to 18 if they couldn't transition.
>I think the massive leftward push on these issues over the past 10 years, coupled with an alarming lack of caution on these demographic shifts, has led to a corresponding rightward pushback because of numerous preventable failures.
Can you give some examples of this? I am humbly unaware of what you are specifically referencing.
