There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want in the hope the stakeholders settle closer to your ideal than if you'd simply laid your cards on the table.

By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.

> There's a term for this in the realm of public debate, which I am presently unable to recall, but the gist of it is the idea that you ask for a much greater concession than you really want...By doing this repeatedly and over time we can (slowly, maybe less slowly?) change the course of history.

That concept is likely moving the Overton Window[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Yep! That's it, thanks for refreshing my memory. Looks like I would have found it if I'd been a bit more persistent with my search terms.

Overton window perhaps? The main way the mainstream media prevents this is, as Chomsky said, narrowly defining/limiting the terms of debate, but allowing very lively debate within those confines.

Anchoring, and door-in-the-face?

Door-in-the-face[1] corresponds with what I was thinking of, thank you, though I seem to have it filed away in my brain under some other term still.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique