The video below makes an interesting case that, even after a year of Trump in office, our sense of what are acceptable political views has already shifted further right. Using the idea of the "
Overton window" to describe what is politically acceptable and clips from the years news coverage, it is possible to show how Trump's ability to do the unthinkable has made radical conservative views look more respectable by comparison.
Do you think this sounds right? Or is this just politically correct intolerance of our increasingly fact-free media diet?
Interesting. I always thought that the notion of someone considering something to be "radical," "ridiculous," or "unthinkable" is an indicator of someone who is incapable of being a free thinker and unable to think outside the box. It also comes across as a bit arrogant, since anyone who would label an idea "radical" or "ridiculous" or "unthinkable" is attempting to set themselves up as some kind of authority over ideas and thought. It's a dishonest tactic of intimidation and ridicule which should be rejected in open discussion. It relies too much on an "audience" either cheering or jeering, and it indicates that someone is gambling on their abilities to manipulate and persuade the peanut gallery.
No doubt it works as a political tactic, as it has since the days of the Roman Empire. But sometimes it doesn't work, and this is what we're seeing now with Trump in office. People who had previously set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of what is "normal" versus what is "ridiculous" are now getting visibly frustrated and upset that their tactics are starting to fail. "How can anyone support Trump!?! These people are just crazy!" That's the refrain we keep hearing these days. It's also an indicator of insularity and groupthink, as people who have been out of touch and consider themselves far above the hoi polloi have lost track of where they're going and what they're doing.
It's perfectly natural that those who have occupied a comfortable position in their ivory towers would want to stay there, but that, in and of itself, has become more important than whatever principles or ideals put them there in the first place. There are historical examples one can draw upon, particularly within certain religions which ruled the roost for centuries. After a time, the Church became more interested in protecting the "institution" than practicing the principles upon which it was founded, and this is where the rubber meets the road when ideals clash and institutions come crashing down.
When people are motivated by individual gain and personal benefit to compromise and water down their principles just because they want to enjoy a life of hedonistic comfort and luxury, that's when they become vulnerable. They become inflexible, intransigent, and incapable of recognizing that which challenges and threatens them until it stares them in the face, and then they wonder "How could this have happened!??!"
