Understanding the Overton Window

This article was originally published by Don Stacy II at The Mises Institute. 

Commonly discussed in radical political circles is the Overton window (also called the window of discourse), which is typically defined as the range of subjects and arguments—public ideas—politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. The Overton window varies over time (either by shifting, shrinking, and/or expanding), thereby demonstrating the gradual evolution of societal norms and values. Less well-known is that political commentator Joshua Trevino has hypothesized that the political acceptability component of the Overton window can be subdivided into six significant and separately identifiable degrees. These degrees of political acceptability are, from least copacetic to most copacetic, as follows: unthinkable, radical, acceptable, sensible, popular, and policy.

• Unthinkable: Idea considered too radical for public discussion;
• Radical: Idea outside mainstream debate, but debated by activists;
• Acceptable: Idea entering the mainstream discussion;
• Sensible: Idea widely accepted in mainstream discussion;
• Popular: Idea broadly supported by the public;
• Policy: Idea enacted into law

Trevino’s hypothesis is particularly important for those espousing non-mainstream public ideas, for if correct, radicals can utilize the concept to evaluate, at an instant in time and through time, the acceptability of their proposals to the “normal” population. Even more importantly, radicals can use Trevino’s work to select appropriate communication strategies to influence public opinion, for different approaches are necessary across the political acceptability continuum, as a strategy for one stage may be ineffective at another.

Communication Strategies for Ideas Outside the Overton Window: Unthinkable or Radical

When an idea is outside the Overton window, it is considered too “extreme” for mainstream consideration, so the overall strategy is not to immediately achieve policy change, but rather to build awareness and shift public discourse.

• Champion bold ideas: Push the most radical version of the idea.
• Build a groundswell of support by framing the conversation: Focus on building a grassroots movement by using storytelling and provocative framing to capture attention, challenge existing norms, and introduce the new idea into the public discussion.
• Generate research and thought leadership: Publish research, data, and scholarly work (often via think tanks) to legitimize the idea and establish a base of factual information.

Communication Strategies for Ideas at the Edge of the Overton Window: Acceptable or Sensible

Once an idea gains enough public traction to be considered “acceptable,” the communication strategy can become more direct, so the focus shifts toward building broader support and demonstrating the idea’s practicality and legitimacy.

• Form broad coalitions: Build alliances with a diverse range of organizations and individuals to amplify the message and demonstrate growing support.
• Engage with mainstream media to highlight relatable benefits: Pursue positive media coverage through op-eds, interviews, and strategic media relations to normalize the idea in ways that resonate with and address the public’s values and pragmatic concerns.
• Pull the rope sideways: Focus on tangentially related proposals that are more immediately tractable and less controversial, which moves the overall conversation in a new direction without directly engaging in the primary political tug-of-war.

Communication Strategies for Ideas Inside the Overton Window: Popular or Policy

When an idea is “popular,” the focus shifts from public persuasion to political implementation, so communication strategies concentrate on mobilizing existing support and engaging policymakers directly to turn the idea into legislation.

• Engage policymakers directly with public opinion data: Work with receptive elected officials by presenting polling data and research that demonstrate overwhelming public support for the idea, which reinforces to politicians that advocating for the policy, introducing relevant legislation, and adopting the measure are politically safe moves.
• Create targeted messages for stakeholders: Develop clear and concise messaging that highlights how the policy will benefit specific groups and organizations in ways they understand and care about.
• Reinforce with multiple channels: Use various platforms, including social media and traditional media, to keep the issue in the public eye and maintain pressure on decision-makers.

Application of Overton Window/Trevino Degrees of Political Acceptability

Let’s apply the Overton window/Trevino degrees of political acceptability concepts to an important issue of the day: The high costs of prescription drugs in the United States. JAMA—the Journal of the American Medical Association—intermittently publishes articles discussing this problem. For example, a November 26, 2024 article, titled “Strategies to Help Patients Navigate High Prescription Drug Costs,” was penned by several authors affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

In this article the “elite” authors pinpoint the root cause of the problem but spectacularly fail to advocate for the obvious root solution. To be fair, the authors start strong—in the second sentence of the second paragraph—by correctly identifying the primary reason for high prescription drug costs in the United States: “In the US, brand-name drug manufacturers are allowed to set prices during periods of patent-protected market exclusivity.” And, promisingly, the next sentence recognizes the economic reality of the end of the patent monopoly privilege: “When exclusivities end, generic competition from multiple manufacturers lowers prices….” But, sadly, Lalani et al. then decline to connect the dots with an immediate call for the abolition of intellectual property laws. Instead, they swerve into a discussion of secondary reasons for high US prescription drug costs, “such as insufficient competition or complexities in how drugs are reimbursed, distributed, and tiered.” The remainder of the body of the article discusses strategies for patients to overcome these secondary causes.

The conclusion of the paper is also unsatisfying, for though the authors note the need for “system-wide policy reforms,” their feeble notion of reorganization involves “expanding Medicare price negotiation and out-of-pocket limits introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act to all patients in the US.”

Libertarians, of course, recognize and advocate for the true solution to the high US prescription drug cost problem: immediate abolition of IP. But, based on the JAMA paper, where should this idea be currently classified on the Trevino political acceptability scale? Clearly, the answer is “unthinkable,” for the mainstream authors of the article do not even mention the IP abolition solution. This tells us that libertarian efforts to abolish IP in 2026 should focus on moving the Overton window for this issue from the “unthinkable/radical” stages to the “acceptable/sensible” stages via the following communication strategies: Advocate the most radical version of the idea, build a grassroots movement by framing the conversation with storytelling, and publish scholarly research (at research centers such as the Mises Institute).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, while knowledge of the existence of the Overton window is necessary, familiarity of the relevant strategies for each of Trevino’s degrees of political acceptability is at least equally important when advocating radical social change (such as IP abolition).