There’s a frame I’ve been developing for a while on analyzing some group dynamics among political allies.
So, one popular concept in the lefty blogosphere at least is called the Overton window.
It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in
public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue.
Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable.
Fairly straightforward and generally a useful idea. Okay, so working off that concept, I think groups can be described as radical or moderate (with a lot of gradation in between). The radicals are the ones advocating ideas to move the Overton window that might keep you from being published in a mainstream source. The moderates are the ones who try to cut deals with the uncommitted and the opposition typically to incrementally advance the cause. A healthy movement has both working together in relative peace.
On most issues I tend to be a moderate. It suits my disposition and the fact that I work in the lower (grunt) rungs of the policy community. My big exception is that I’m an absolutist against torture. I don’t feel like emphasizing with the other side on that one.
So here’s a quick analysis of what I think are the default behaviors of each group:
Moderates:
-
Strengths: Empathy with the other side, tries to draw away moderates from the other side, typically have an easier time getting power.
-
Weaknesses: Tendency to sell out, can often be ignored by opponents.
-
Relations with other moderates: sometimes friendly wonky battles but also vicious power battles.
-
Relations with radicals: Sometimes "sister Souljah’s" or "concern trolls" radicals; when relations are strong help radical proposals get moderate support.
Radicals:
-
Strengths: Fighters, move the Overton window, capable of proposing new ideas that may have been unthinkable for moderates, provides a safe space for those treated poorly by mainstream society, force change.
-
Weaknesses: Other side tends to be unwilling to negotiate with them, they often don’t want to engage with the other side outside of battles.
-
Relations with other radicals: some tendency towards purity wars; when the status quo is poor can alliance build among the excluded.
-
Relations with moderates: tend to be distrustful; alliances only tend to work if moderates don’t set pre-conditions.
When relations are good, you get a good cop-bad cop thing going. When relations are bad, you get the Democrats during the first half of the Bush administration. Also, this analysis assumes an absence of political violence, things get much more complicated when real fighting is on the table.
Comments