Instead of guiding us, the Overton window now mirrors our divisions

Without being judgmental, consider all of the government policies that would have been considered unthinkable not so long ago. 

There’s school choice options like charter schools, vouchers and publicly financed scholarships that provide families with alternatives to traditional public schools. There is same-sex marriage, the legalization of medical marijuana and the decriminalization of certain other drugs, and state bans on the future sale of gasoline-powered automobiles. There are also expansive open-carry laws and the elimination of cash bail.

None of these policy changes happened by accident. For decades, serious political science students have turned to a concept called the “Overton window” to explain how policy ideas that once seemed outside the mainstream are eventually embraced and become law.  

Named for the late political scientist Joseph P. Overton, the Overton window is essentially the range of ideas or policies considered palatable for discussion at any given time.

The window frames a spectrum of ideas, ranging from “unthinkable” to “radical,” “acceptable,” “sensible” and “popular.” Ideas inside the window eventually lead to policy. Those outside the window are viewed as too extreme, and politicians who endorse them risk losing public support. 

The transition from what at first is unthinkable to what later is a fait accompli typically involves cultural change, lobbying and other factors — what is known as “popularizing” ideas. This usually depends on relatively few committed advocates of an idea convincing the broader public that it has merit, even if people oppose it or have opposed it in the past.

Today, unfortunately, Overton’s window seems broken, or closed, largely because few of us seem willing to listen to those who hold opinions different from our own.

There are many reasons for this disconnect — including, perhaps most of all, social media algorithms that tend to reinforce our preconceptions by exposing us only to those voices with whom we agree, exaggerating the problems we already perceive and obscuring good arguments that might prompt us to rethink our opinions.

You need look no further than the government shutdown, a result of each party refusing to budge from its initial positions. Partisans on each side cheer their representatives’ unwillingness to negotiate.

When we are not exposing ourselves to different opinions, we are never challenged to change our minds. And when we avoid changing our minds, we drift apart from each other and begin to live in two different worlds.

Public debate and the exchange of competing ideas is the core of the Constitution’s First Amendment. At first blush, it may seem like debate pulls us apart, but it actually brings us closer together through the art of persuasion.

The framers of the Constitution believed that free and open debate sustains a free society. They realized that when persuasion fails, violence often fills the void. Older Americans understand this, but not the young. 

According to the 2025 American Political Perspectives Survey, overwhelming majorities of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers — liberal, conservative and moderate alike — reject the idea that “violence is often necessary to create social change.” However, significant percentages of Millennials and Gen Zers — including nearly half of self-identified liberals — agreed with the statement.

If we are to continue living in a free society, we must respect not only our own right to express ideas, but the right of others to attempt to change our thinking. The Overton window shows that it’s not necessary to change the majority of minds to move the policy needle, only those in the “moveable middle” who can bridge the new idea to the old.

Is the Overton window broken? Perhaps not. But instead of guiding society’s progress through persuasion, it now mirrors our divisions. The problem is not that ideas are too bold or too plentiful; it’s that too few of us are patient enough to test our convictions against those of others.

A healthy democracy depends on the steady motion of that window on minds that can be changed through evidence, empathy and reason. Rebuilding that motion requires rediscovering the civic habits that make persuasion possible: curiosity, humility and respect for people who see the world differently.

If we can recover those habits, the Overton window will once again become not a reflection of our polarization but a measure of our capacity to learn from and live with one another.

Richard Lorenc, former chief operating officer of the Foundation for Economic Education, is president and CEO of Lexandria, an education nonprofit that seeks to reignite the American spirit through innovative classroom content and tools.