"... and rough beasts come slouching through it to be born."

August 1, 2016 12:48 AM

"British politics has never seen a purer example of the Overton window than the referendum on membership of the EU." Brexit Blues, John Lanchester for LRB

"The ‘Overton window’ is a term from political science meaning the acceptable range of political thought in a culture at a given moment. It was the creation of Joseph Overton, a think-tank intellectual based in Michigan, who died in 2003 at 43 after a solo plane accident. His crucial insight, one which both emerged from and was central to the work of the think tank Right, was that the window of acceptability can be moved. An idea can start far outside the political mainstream – flat taxes, abolish the IRS, more guns in schools, building a beautiful wall and making Mexico pay – but once it has been stated and argued for, framed and restated, it becomes thinkable. It crosses over from the fringe of right-wing think-tankery to journalistic fellow-travellers; then it crosses over to the fringe of electoral politics; then it becomes a thing people start seriously advocating as a possible policy. The window has moved, and rough beasts come slouching through it to be born."

posted by cwest (27 comments total)

Of course the Overton Window can also be moved by the forces of good*: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal sufferage, marijuana liberalization, etc.

*good as in "the right side of history"
posted by chavenet at 1:29 AM on August 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

From the article: The numbers are eerily similar to the referendum outcome: 48 per cent net contributors, 52 per cent net recipients. It’s a system bitterly resented both by the beneficiaries and by the suppliers of the largesse.

From where I'm sitting - as an immigrant specifically and deliberately excluded by law from receiving anything at all, and currently unable to work for medical reasons - those resentful of being beneficiaries can go fucking jump in the sea. They are at least a responsible for the scrounger rhetoric that has put us all in this place - 52% not contributing, but not all eligible to receive anything either. Entirely excluded from participation in society.
posted by Dysk at 1:30 AM on August 1, 2016 [13 favorites]

...and the argument that a life on benefits is not a dignified or worthy one is an argument that people with disabilities that prevent them working are inherently undignified and unworthy. No. Treat people on benefits like they are worthy and possessing of dignity, not like cheats and scroungers (complete reform of the way ESA and JSA are handled, no assumption that people are trying to get things they don't deserve, no sanctions, etc.) and they might feel their lives are worthy and dignified.
posted by Dysk at 1:49 AM on August 1, 2016 [38 favorites]

The excellent John Lanchester essay includes a link to the also excellent James Meek essay Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity

The wealthiest and most powerful in Europe, Australasia and North America have turned the myth to their advantage. In this version of Robin Hood the traditional poor – the unemployed, the disabled, refugees – have been put into the conceptual box where the rich used to be. It is they, the social category previously labelled ‘poor’, who are accused of living in big houses, wallowing in luxury and not needing to work, while those previously considered rich are redesignated as the ones who work terribly hard for fair reward or less, forced to support this new category of poor-who-are-considered-rich. In this version the sheriff of Nottingham runs a ruthless realm of plunder and political correctness, ransacking the homesteads of honest peasants for money to finance the conceptual rich – that is, the unemployed, the disabled, refugees, working-class single mothers, dodgers, scroungers, chavs, chisellers and cheats.

posted by Mister Bijou at 3:43 AM on August 1, 2016 [41 favorites]

One criticism of Lanchester's piece that I'd like to make: his definition of "British voter" apparently doesn't include the Northern Irish or Scottish electorate, who voted to remain in the EU—overwhelmingly so in Scotland. Both countries have their own distinct political cultures that don't align cleanly with that of England, and in the case of Scotland at least, nationalism has acquired unexpectedly social-democratic pro-EU connotations.
posted by cstross at 4:16 AM on August 1, 2016 [12 favorites]

Perhaps there is a niche business opportunity in setting up a finishing school for rough beasts wherein they may be offered deportment and grooming tips & thereby smoothly saunter, their hour come round at last, toward Bethlehem, or suavely slip through the Overton window - although if it is moving rightward so quickly, it may be unsafe for them to do so at present.
posted by misteraitch at 4:41 AM on August 1, 2016 [11 favorites]

I don' think he actually defines "British voter", does he?

But it would, of course, include the Scottish and Northern Irish electorates, just as it includes those in London, Oxfordshire or Brighton, which all voted to remain.

Don't forget that over a million people in Scotland - 38% - voted to leave, and almost 350,000 - 44% - did the same in Northern Ireland.
posted by ComfySofa at 4:50 AM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Perhaps there is a niche business opportunity in setting up a finishing school for rough beasts

Perhaps they could also sell centre-holders, for centres that can't hold themselves.
posted by Grangousier at 5:00 AM on August 1, 2016 [20 favorites]

I wish that we could stop the pretence that immigration has ever been a "forbidden topic" in this country. It's fucking nonsense and all you have to do is watch Question Time or listen to Jeremy Vine or pick up a paper to know it. FFS one of the Labour Party's platforms at the last election was restrictions on migration.

Cornwall's fucked. Sunderland's fucked. Wales is fucked. Many, many other places are fucked. But hey, taking back control, yeah?
posted by threetwentytwo at 5:01 AM on August 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Brexit and the Challenges of Reality published in the FT today by David Allen Green.
posted by vacapinta at 5:13 AM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

The numbers are eerily similar to the referendum outcome: 48 per cent net contributors, 52 per cent net recipients. It’s a system bitterly resented both by the beneficiaries and by the suppliers of the largesse.


The notion that the rich and well off are not also net recipients of benefits is because the deep societal benefits that enable them to build and keep their wealth have become invisible like oxygen. Unless you have to daily physically fight to defend your wealth you are receiving the majority of the benefits of the legal system. If you are not building the roads you are driving your delivery trucks on then you are receiving a benefit of the system. Unless you educated and trained your staff from childhood.....and so on.

We are all of us net takers. Some just have more effective PR.
posted by srboisvert at 6:33 AM on August 1, 2016 [47 favorites]

It was a thought-provoking piece. The image of working class Englishmen with no place in the workforce of modern London resenting their new immigrant neighbors hopping on trains to their London jobs was striking.

I found it strange that he grappled with the (obvious) contribution to the Brexit success of a 50-year-policy of silencing debate on immigration and reached the conclusion that disputes over immigration should STILL be taboo.

(Here in the US, if Donald Trump becomes President, it's going to be because the mainstream media basically cannot seem to write anything about him except variations of "he shouldn't have said that" instead of "if we ban Muslim immigration we'll keep out 50 Pakistani and Bangladeshi ER doctors for each ISIS sympathizer ... take your pick.")
posted by MattD at 6:40 AM on August 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Brexit and the Moral Vision of Nationhood, Alastair Roberts

Brexit: a disaster decades in the making, Gary Younge
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:49 AM on August 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wish that we could stop the pretence that immigration has ever been a "forbidden topic" in this country.

The 1968 speech that poisoned discussion on immigration: Rivers of Blood

posted by Mister Bijou at 8:18 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

We are all of us net takers. Some just have more effective PR.

This is sort of a quibble, but I think what you mean is that we're all takers, not that we're all net takers. I believe net in this context is the net of gross/net, rather than say, safety net.

Logically we can't all be "net" takers, because then everybody would be getting out more than they put in.

Which is not at all to say that we don't all benefit tremendously from public infrastructure, rich people and business owners included. And that a lot of rich people and business owners underestimate how much they're receiving from the system. And that it's much more comfortable to be in a position where you have everything you need and can contribute a million dollars to receive half a million dollars in benefits than it is to be in a position where you contribute $5000 to get $10,000 in benefits.

I only bring this up because it's useful to distinguish "taker" from "net taker" since doing so highlights the fact that everybody does get something out of the system, even if it's not quite as much as they put in, and 2. we actually do need to pay attention to make sure that some people are contributing more than they get out, or else the system will grind to a halt.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:18 AM on August 1, 2016

Maybe the 'all of us net takers' was adding in all the externalities that future generations will have to pay.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:48 AM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

I have started up a start-up which will leverage synergies and drill down to core competencies in order to build personal drones with little falcon-sized speakers on them, to fly up there in the widening gyre and broadcast the falconer to the falcon via Bluetooth 3.0. Our proof of concept has yielded 30 hours of continuous flight time and one sleep-deprived falcon who, curiously, declines to follow the falconer's instructions despite being able to hear him.
posted by radicalawyer at 10:58 AM on August 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

This is sort of a quibble, but I think what you mean is that we're all takers, not that we're all net takers. I believe net in this context is the net of gross/net, rather than say, safety net.

Logically we can't all be "net" takers, because then everybody would be getting out more than they put in.

I meant exactly what I said.

There is a reason why no billionaire has ever actually moved to Galt's Gulch.

Civilization has the effect of multiplying peoples contributions so that we are all much much more than the mere summed effort of individuals.

We are all net takers. Some may take more or less, though really with regard to civilization as a whole those differences are marginal, but we all get out far more than we put in.
posted by srboisvert at 11:04 AM on August 1, 2016 [24 favorites]

In find it fascinating how Lanchester's incisive descriptions of British voters help understand Trump voters.
posted by twsf at 11:05 AM on August 1, 2016

"Logically we can't all be "net" takers, because then everybody would be getting out more than they put in."

Only on an assumed zero-sum calculation. As Jem likes to say, "Showtime, Synergy!"
posted by klangklangston at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Tom Whyman, Twitter's @HealthUntoDeath: On our duty as members of the Labour Party in the era of the present crisis

This piece was originally posted on medium by the left-leaning journalist Gawain Sprout (The Guardian, The Telegraph, Blood and Soil); following a twitterstorm, it has been deleted. Having screengrabbed it in order to mock certain central passages on twitter, I here reproduce it in its entirety.

We are all of us, reading this, members of the Labour party. The Labour party cannot be escaped: it is everywhere, an as it were sacred duty that forces itself upon us at all times, in each and every one of our actions. I don’t just mean everyone ‘on the left’ here, or even everyone in Britain. I mean every single member of humanity. If you are a human being at all, it is necessary to posit that you are a member of the Labour party. Thus Labour’s fate, is our fate – it is something that, as a species, we all share.

Why does the Labour party exist? Well, technically, the Labour party was founded in 1900 out of the Trade Union movement – this is what you will read in party histories. But this is not the real reason why the Labour party exists. The Labour party in fact exists to save creation from itself, to redeem the whole created, material world. What existed before the Labour party – and, what exists outside of the Labour party today – tends by itself inevitably to one thing: Tory-ness. Creation is destructive, selfish; it is posh, and elitist. Every objective tendency in creation seeks to brutalise immigrants, to lock up the homeless; the natural order of things wants a less favourable deal for working families; a better one for bankers. Creation wants to privatise schools, and healthcare; it wants to sell off every single one of the state’s assets. Creation hates women, and queers, and all members of ethnic and religious minorities. Creation wants to pursue short-sighted energy policies that will surely, in the long-term, spell environmental disaster; creation is enthusiastic about leaving the EU. Creation is war, it is death, it is plague – and it is constantly coming up with new evils to inflict upon itself.

Make sure to read to the end.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:20 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

But while the benefits of immigration are generally shared, the local impacts can sometimes seem overwhelming, especially when an area with no previous experience of immigration suddenly finds itself with thousands or tens of thousands of new arrivals, and no corresponding increase in resources to help with the pressure on housing, schools, healthcare and the rest

Hmmm. Areas like this voted Remain. Fewer immigrants, more likely to vote Leave. Guardian article.

More to the point: this is just idle hand-wringing. Brexit is a result of political failure at the very top - David Cameron couldn't control the loons in his party, so promised them a referendum. If he hadn't failed so badly in this, we wouldn't have had the referendum, and we wouldn't have had Brexit.

There is a reason why referendums are a tool of the dictator, and that direct presidential elections go along with dictatorships: the British system with a very loose connection between voting and power is stable and allows the politically-powerful, those with a vested interested in a peaceful, prosperous and successful country, to keep control with the support of a reasonable proportion of the people. Alternative systems produce fuck-ups like this.

It's David Cameron's screw-up. If he had avoided the referendum we would be fine. Unjust? Undemocratic? Well, whatever. There's more to democracy than voting.
posted by alasdair at 11:30 AM on August 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

It seems to be saying that, if the Remain side had had a decent campaign with decent messaging, and if people had been able to talk about the positive benefits of immigration, the outcome may well have been different.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 11:39 AM on August 1, 2016

I see many parallels with failure of established parties here in the US to take into account new realities. The removal of most unskilled manufacturing jobs due to globalization and automation means that an entire class has been put out of work, leaving the Salaried and Investment classes running the show, failing to take into account any of the concerns of the working class.

Something has to be done to address this, and politics will be unstable and confusing until then.
posted by MikeWarot at 1:19 PM on August 1, 2016

alasdair: "It's David Cameron's screw-up. If he had avoided the referendum we would be fine."

There is also the argument that he could have had the referendum but set up the rules more sensibly, e.g.: require a minimum participation rate; require a super-majority threshold (say, 2/3) instead of simple majority; require that each of England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland individually pass the referendum instead of the UK as a whole; have the referendum vote on specific exit strategies instead of a simple yes/no on remaining in the EU.

There were so many ways available to them to run the referendum and not come away with this result that it is sometimes baffling to contemplate the sheer incompetence and/or hubris involved.
posted by mhum at 7:27 PM on August 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

'government in the UK, as well as politics in the UK, has comprehensively failed, both to make the arguments about the realities of immigration and to make plans to deal with it.'

I don't know which Britain he has been living in for the past 15 years or so, but in the one I live in successive governments have been scapegoating immigration and immigrants for all manner of issues. Pandering to the populist press is just the visible part of this campaign. Government funding of research into the effects of immigration has been withdrawn from projects mid way through their research schedule as soon as they publish preliminary results showing positive effects. It's not just that they haven't made the arguments about the realities of immigration, it's that they have been actively working to suppress these arguments getting exposure, research funding or any support at all.

This is a worrying, deliberately ignorant, fascistic approach followed by both the Labour government and, less surprisingly, the Conservatives. The racist slogan 'British jobs for British people' was resurrected by Gordon Brown. Victimising the least powerful members of society to curry favour is reprehensible. This potentially disastrous situation we find ourselves in has been worked toward for decades by the feckless, morally moribund political class using the lives and livelihoods of the poorest as fuel for their selfish quarrels.
posted by asok at 7:22 AM on August 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

A divided nation, Simon Wren-Lewis

Taking all this evidence into account it seems that the Brexit vote was a protest vote against both the impact of globalisation and social liberalism. The two are connected by immigration, and of course the one certainty of the Brexit debate was that free movement prevented controls on EU migration. But that does not mean defeat was inevitable, as Chris makes clear. Kevin O’Rourke points out that the state can play an active role in compensating the losers from globalisation, and of course in recent years there has been an attempt to roll back the state. Furthermore, as Johnston et al suggest, the connection between economic decline and immigration is more manufactured than real.

Brexit: a battle lost but who will fight the war?

All this implies that while the potential for a Brexit vote was always there, reflecting the perfect storm of anger against globalisation and social liberalism, it might not have been realised if the Remain campaign had been better, the Leave campaign had been honest and the broadcast media had not departed from its mission to educate and explain. The lies of the Leave camp are already apparent. The depreciation in sterling that immediately followed the vote is a cut in living standards for everyone in the UK with no lasting compensation. It is permanent unless the markets have got things spectacularly wrong. The economic downturn that is underway is as predicted. In both cases voters were told this was fear mongering by the Remain side: now those that promoted Leave are in the ludicrous situation of arguing that markets and firms have somehow been deceived by Project Fear.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:13 AM on August 13, 2016