HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Has it ever occurred to y...

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:24 PM

Has it ever occurred to you that "incrementalism" is really ...

nothing more than accomplishing symbolic gestures?

94 replies, 4491 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply Has it ever occurred to you that "incrementalism" is really ... (Original post)
KPN Apr 2016 OP
Scuba Apr 2016 #1
Gomez163 Apr 2016 #2
Chan790 Apr 2016 #7
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #13
truedelphi Apr 2016 #27
passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #68
senz Apr 2016 #78
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #53
redstateblues Apr 2016 #77
senz Apr 2016 #80
redstateblues Apr 2016 #82
senz Apr 2016 #85
Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #58
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #3
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #34
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #35
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #57
Romulox Apr 2016 #4
CorporatistNation Apr 2016 #22
Romulox Apr 2016 #23
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #37
senz Apr 2016 #81
beedle Apr 2016 #69
Jackilope Apr 2016 #5
Chan790 Apr 2016 #15
rock Apr 2016 #59
Chan790 Apr 2016 #60
rock Apr 2016 #63
Chan790 Apr 2016 #65
rock Apr 2016 #73
djean111 Apr 2016 #6
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #8
TCJ70 Apr 2016 #9
Chan790 Apr 2016 #17
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #56
Fairgo Apr 2016 #10
Adrahil Apr 2016 #11
Chan790 Apr 2016 #19
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #41
beedle Apr 2016 #70
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #71
beedle Apr 2016 #72
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #38
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #43
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #47
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #48
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #62
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #67
bettyellen Apr 2016 #66
Beowulf Apr 2016 #12
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #45
silvershadow Apr 2016 #14
DrDan Apr 2016 #16
KPN Apr 2016 #26
DrDan Apr 2016 #30
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #29
DrDan Apr 2016 #31
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #36
DrDan Apr 2016 #39
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #42
DrDan Apr 2016 #32
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #40
DrDan Apr 2016 #44
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #46
DrDan Apr 2016 #92
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #93
DrDan Apr 2016 #94
Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #18
Skwmom Apr 2016 #20
pa28 Apr 2016 #21
Blue Meany Apr 2016 #24
Buns_of_Fire Apr 2016 #25
azurnoir Apr 2016 #28
BillZBubb Apr 2016 #33
TransitJohn Apr 2016 #49
RufusTFirefly Apr 2016 #50
RandySF Apr 2016 #51
senz Apr 2016 #84
Dem2 Apr 2016 #52
MisterP Apr 2016 #54
PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #55
ecstatic Apr 2016 #61
DrDan Apr 2016 #74
redstateblues Apr 2016 #83
senz Apr 2016 #87
ecstatic Apr 2016 #88
senz Apr 2016 #89
JSup Apr 2016 #64
Umbral18 Apr 2016 #75
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #76
Doctor_J Apr 2016 #79
senz Apr 2016 #86
KPN Apr 2016 #90
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #91

Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:27 PM

1. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:27 PM

2. No. Incrementalism is getting what you can given the circumstances.

 

It also has the advantage of being less likely to get rolled back when the other side takes power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:31 PM

7. It often has a net outcome of treading water.

 

Her incrementalism is a not-small part of why Hillary will never be an acceptable candidate for me. I don't want symbolic gains and treading water...I want to make real progressive gains.

We're never going to make real gains, symbolic or actual, with Clinton. She just sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:34 PM

13. Worse, it's aiming low when you need to be dreaming, leading....

 

And then you end up worse than where you were when you started.

(not to argue, just to expand on your observation-- it's worse)

And yes, she is the embodiment of the lack of ideas and leadership, she sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:11 PM

27. Thanks, Chan790. I agree totally. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:50 PM

68. Well, leaving off the last part of your statement

which is unnecessary and not conducive to a dialogue, I think treading water is not acceptable, but that's not what has been happening in this country economically, in spite of all the good that our liberal/centrist President Obama had done during his terms.

We are not just treading water, we are falling behind. And the policies that made Bill Clinton look good economically when he was President, are now the cause of our falling behind, so we do not want nor can we sustain more of that neo-liberalism.

We want this country to be a leader again, not in military power, but in healthcare, education, jobs, green energy and health of our planet, and PEACE! We want a country that takes care of it's poor (doesn't waste it's money on drug wars and prisons) and gives everyone an equal opportunity to be the best that they can be.

I don't see us moving forward with Clinton. I see us falling backward as she pushes more trade agreements and doesn't support the major changes in healthcare, education and ecology that are needed NOW.

OPEC is considering freezing oil production because of the glut. We shouldn't be trying to extract every last drop of oil from the ground. We shouldn't be contaminating our groundwater with fracking just to stop destroying our mountains and air and water with coal production. We need major proposals to go green on energy now. Not incremental change. This is vital to the survival of this planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #68)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:39 PM

78. Agreed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:08 PM

53. NO. Incrementalism is bowing down and accepting what the authoritarian gives you.

 

I am glad our founders didn't settle for the bullcrap "incrementalism". And I think it's immoral to not fight for those among us that can't fight.

While we peons are supposed to grovel and accept our increment, the banksters that Clinton is beholden to, grabs 5 trillion dollars in one big scoop. The "incrementalism" that we've been living thru has seen the wealth of the 99% drop for decades while the friends of Clinton (and even the Clintons) have been grabbing all the gold and not very "incrementally".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #53)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:39 PM

77. That's right. Bernie would tell congress to take it

Or leave it. I'm sure once he started shouting and wagging his finger he would get everything he demanded. That's how our system works!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #77)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:42 PM

80. Bernie works well on both sides of the aisle.

 

He is reasonable and pragmatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:57 PM

82. That's why so many of his colleagues are supporting him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #82)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:07 PM

85. Political clout and working well are two different things.

 

As we both know, Hill has a famous name (spouse was POTUS), a massive fortune, a reputation for vindictiveness, and plays politics all over D.C.

Bernie didn't play the games, he just worked hard, got along with others, and accomplished quite a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:17 PM

58. No incrementalism in a delaying tactic

used but those in power to provide them time to figure out how to propagandize and ratffuck the hole thing.

Sometime you can't just pass the puck, have to shoot for a goal and knock a few heads along the way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:28 PM

3. Failed policies are regressive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:24 PM

34. Nobody is proposing failed policies. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:25 PM

35. Really?

 

If you say so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:15 PM

57. It was projection. The ACA for example has set back single payer a decade at least.

 


Clinton plans on initiating failed policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:28 PM

4. "Incrementalism" is a coward's method of defending the Status Quo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:52 PM

22. "Incrementalism" Is Akin To... DOING NOTHING! NO CHANGE! THAT IS WHAT GOLDMAN "PAYS" HER FOR!

Gettit? THE PTB want someone who reliably will ... PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:54 PM

23. At least the Republicans have the courage of their convictions. A Rightwing Democrat is a fraud. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:26 PM

37. ... or a creature of your own creation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:47 PM

81. Third Way = rightwing Democrat.

 

Al From and Bill Clinton's creation, which you support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:53 PM

69. precisely

 

... there always seems to be some excuse or other for not taking the steps needed to really address the issues.

every crisis there ever was, it's always been the lower classes that were the ones that were told they have to sacrifice .. but 'trust us', as soon as we recover from this crisis we promise we will put your issues as our number one priority ... but seems there is always the 'next crisis' to deal with, so rather than address your issues, the issues we promised to address before, we are going to have to ask you to wait even longer, but soon, we promise; Oh, and by the way, this new crisis? Well, we need to ask you to sacrifice a little bit extra for this one as well, but don't worry, when this all clears up, your priorities are our priorities ... promise!!.

That's 'incrementalism' ... we incrementally ask you to sacrifice, while we incrementally cause other excuses to incrementally put off recognizing your sacrifices while incrementally asking you to sacrifice even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:28 PM

5. Leadership requires Vision, not pathetic weasel words like "incremental".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackilope (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:43 PM

15. Incrementalism reminds me of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise.

 



In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead. as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI: 9, 239 b15


In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise. Credit: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise)


If we keep trying to make incremental gains, we're never going to achieve anything. Lo, experience proves this...incrementalism has never achieved anything. I daresay, it never will either. It a methodology worth abandoning entirely for making progressive political gains...politics is not physics, it favors inertia over motion. Incrementalism lends itself to inertia and in time slows all progress to a halt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:17 PM

59. And yet

Achilles catches the Tortoise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #59)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:34 PM

60. No. Not according to Zeno.

 

Achilles never catches the tortoise because by the time he gets to where the tortoise was...the tortoise is no longer there. Then when he gets to where the tortoise then was...it's moved further. Repeat, ad nauseum.

Under Zeno's paradox, it's impossible to catch the tortoise for Achilles. It's also a good example of the incremental shrinkage of fractional squares.

(1/2)+(1/4)+(1/16)+(1/32)+(1/64)+(1/128)+(1/256)+(1/512)+(1/1024)+(1/2048)... /=1

No matter how far you go on that addition problem, it never equals 1...it just asymptotically approaches 1 forever without ever equaling 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:42 PM

63. Zeno was wrong, that why it's a paradox

As one can see by actually running the race. Mathematicians will tell you that if you take the time t to complete the first term '(1/2)' the total time to catch the tortoise is 2t. Not forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:48 PM

65. Mathematicians are not incrementalists.

 

Thank you for proving my point about why we need to go for the full result and not ever-shrinking increments.

Zeno was an idiot...but so are people arguing for incrementalism. Like Zeno's Achilles, incrementalism never reaches the goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #65)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 05:42 PM

73. Well, I guess

If you don't understand the concept, just about anything proves your point. You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:30 PM

6. Or doing Third Way things, a little at a time.....sneakier, is all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:32 PM

8. Incrementalism = "Go ask your father".

 

It's bullshit, it's the absence of leadership.

It's Hillary Rodham Clinton in a nutshell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:32 PM

9. I don't know how anyone expects Hillary...

...to be able to get the same Congress that voted 60+ times to repeal the ACA to incrementally vote to improve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:49 PM

17. I don't expect Hillary to do anything except capitulate to Republicans.

 

It's all Clintonites and Third Wayers have ever been good at. They've got less backbone than invertebrates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:13 PM

56. She agrees with them on their foreign policies and their economic policies. She agrees

 

with them on fracking and locking up the minority communities for profit. She agrees with them that medical marijuana shouldn't be legalized unless big pharma can get a cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:34 PM

10. political moonwalking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:34 PM

11. NO. Demanding everything now, and getting NOTHING is a symbolic gesture. NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:50 PM

19. Demanding nothing now and getting even less is a Clintonian gesture. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:29 PM

41. That is not Clinton's approach and you know it.

 

Arguing fabricated points is a fool's game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #41)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 05:06 PM

70. Oh Please

 

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war, because she brags, it was part of a deal for Bush to fund the recovery of New York City.

Hillary did worst than 'doing nothing' .. she agreed to a war in order to get something that there was no way in fucking hell that Bush would have NOT given money to New York to recover from the largest home soil terrorist attack in US history.

Jesus, Hillary could have gone on TV and called Bush a pedophile and Bush would still have given New York City the money ... Bush is a moron, but holy shit, does anyone realy believe he would have held back rebuilding Wall St.? In 2001?

She 'gave' a war to 'get' NYC what it was going to get any way.

She has no fucking judgment, she has a record of poor judgment ... everything she's done is one big 'mistake', 'apology', embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beedle (Reply #70)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 05:10 PM

71. Thank you for the campaign attack ad.

 

Just because you saw it on tv or read it on some fucked up discussion board doesn't make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #71)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 05:16 PM

72. If Hillary is that vulnerable

 

that you believe a supposedly obscure post on a discussion board will turn into a Hillary 2016 campaign ending Republican advertisement, then I accept your apology for supporting such a walking disaster in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:26 PM

38. The only way to get something is to start by demanding everything.

 

You can't get anything if you start by politely asking for nearly nothing.

And it's impossible to build a long-term electoral coalition for real change on incrementalism.

Incrementalism can never create enthusiasm.

Without enthusiasm, without passion, nothing is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:29 PM

43. Tea Party logic. How is that working out so far?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:34 PM

47. It worked very well for them.

 

It has kept them in control of the House since 2010 and has shifted the political discussion in the Beltway massively to the right, with virtually no pushback at all from anyone in the leadership of OUR party.

Your candidate doesn't want to change the terms of the discussion. She doesn't want to mobilize the majority of the American people who utterly reject the right-wing, corporatist, militarist agenda. Instead, she hangs on to the delusion that wars and trade deals can somehow have progressive, umane results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:36 PM

48. Nothin was passed. The Tea Party is a failure.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:40 PM

62. They weren't TRYING to get things passed. They were trying to cut government down to nothing

 

and destroy environmental regulations, financial regulations, workplace safety regulations and the social wage. They scored massive victories in that effort.

What they showed was that it is possible to reset the terms of the debate and control the agenda.

I despise all they stand for, but we need to recognize that they have been very effective at achieving their goals.

We can only break their grip on political control by mobilizing the base and those who should be in the base into a majority coalition for change. We can't do that with Wall Street money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:49 PM

67. If your view of their goals is correct, they achieved them by doing nothing.

 

Passing free college tuition, universal health care, and destroying the banks will take one helluva lot more than doing nothing.

Sanders will need a fully cooperative Congress is this is to go. Considering that his message is that the Party Establishments are pure trash, he's going to struggle even in the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:49 PM

66. Or by working with others to get the votes to do it- like the senate has

 

Been working together to whip up support for 12$ floor on minimum wage. They negotiate because it involves a lot of states and they need support.
I have to laugh when I hear people think that pulling a big number out of your ass is better.
Unfortunately politicians have to negotiate and build support to get anything done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:34 PM

12. You are in a leaky boat and the water is pooling in the bottom. You are beginning to sink.

The incrementalist gives you a spoon to bail the water, because that's all that person can see that's easy to get. The dreamer looks harder and finds a bucket, something to patch the leak, and makes arrangements to have the boat refurbished.

If what you can get isn't what you need, what good is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:31 PM

45. Nonsense. An idiot would use a teaspoon.

 

Using a bucket is incrementalism and effective.

Damn. This is the dumbest thread ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:41 PM

14. Yes. And when Bernie wins, I fully expect them to try to put a "governor" if you will on him

 

(to use an old-fashioned automotive reference). If he goes at Bernie speed they will probably lose their shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:44 PM

16. I would hardly call Social Security a product of "symbolic gestures"

but if that fits the Sander's narrative, then enjoy the thought for a few more weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:10 PM

26. How was Social Security incrementalism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:19 PM

30. it initially started as a single payment to a retiree

then spouses and minor children were added
later monthly benefits were started
COLA
Disabillity
Medicare
SSI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:16 PM

29. Very pathetic for a Hillary backer to try to use a New Deal program to support her.

Their was nothing incremental about the New Deal. It was bold.

Social Security has incrementally changed by the initial program came about like free tuition for public colleges should. It was a giant step forward.

The Hillbots would have mocked FDR. Unicorns and free stuff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:22 PM

31. nothing incremental about Social Security? You think the program we have today

was a New Deal implementation?

Social Security began as a single payment to a retiree - period. It has certainly grown since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:26 PM

36. That is pathetic. Sure it has changed. But the initial idea, the birth was a giant step.

That's the difference. If FDR had been a Hillary we'd never have had the program to begin with. Let alone incrementally change it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:27 PM

39. so you admit the program we have today is a product of incremental changes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:29 PM

42. Geez, IT WOULD HAVE NEVER EXISTED with just incremental changes.

Starting Social Security was a GIANT STEP, not an incremental move. You really can't understand that? No wonder you support Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:23 PM

32. your subject title is pathetic - and you know it - I never used Social Security in support of

Hillary except to show good programs can come incrementally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:27 PM

40. You own pathetic bud. Social securities origin WAS NOT INCREMENTAL.

It didn't come about incrementally. It has been changed and grown, but it would have never happened under a Hillary, Third Way, corporate "no we can't" administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:29 PM

44. your own words - "we'd never have had the program to begin with. Let alone incrementally change it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:32 PM

46. Are you really that dense? There would be no Social Security program AT ALL.

It wouldn't exist. Because it took a giant step to get it started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 06:21 AM

92. take it up with Dr Elizabeth Segal from Arizona State, Professor in the School of Social Work

Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:53 AM - Edit history (2)

"The Social Security Act is another example of incremental policy making. It took 20 years of legislative activity before the act became law in 1935. Through incremental change, the program gradually expanded. Initially it was designed to provide income for workers after retirement and coverage for family members whose main breadwinner had died. . . . In addition to these major programs, hundreds of amendments have been passed and legislative changes made since passage of the Social Security Act 75 years ago."

from her 2012 book Social Welfare Policy and Social Programs, p.83

I am sure she would welcome a conversation with you and your enlightened position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 09:28 AM

93. She made my point actually. But nice try.

There was no Social Security Act until 1935. Some legislators (like Bernie supporters) were fighting for it, but nothing existed, nada. Then the New Deal happened and big changes were made, not incremental changes. Sanders' like changes, not piddling Hillary incrementalism.

The Professor and you are correct that Social Security has been incrementally expanded over the years. But the fact remains that without the initial bold step of the New Deal, there would be no Social Security Act to incrementally improve.

Are you really this obtuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:06 AM

94. I guess you missed this part

" It took 20 years of legislative activity before the act became law in 1935."

20 years of legislative activity BEFORE the act became law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:49 PM

18. Its lip service.

Its cowardly and shows lack of will,vision,urgency,and ideas.
What if Kennedy said:
"We choose to (Eventually) go to the Moon! ...[6] We choose to (See about) go(ing) to the Moon in (The Next 30 years)this decade and do(nothing until the polls tell us to) the other things,[7] not because they (We care)are easy, but because they are (Lip service) hard; because that goal will serve to (incrementally and eventually)organize and (Further Study)measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we(Should consider thinking about)are willing to accept, one we are (fine postponing) unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to (Accomplish in the next 30 years)win "

She has no vision and shows little courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:51 PM

20. Look at the Clinton presidency. The family leave act, which is NOT paid, is the only thing


I am able to think that the disastrous duo accomplished. And no the dot.com boom was not created by Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:52 PM

21. Taking small steps forward while regressive policy goals like TPP take giant leaps.

It's a deceptive idea designed to make you feel comfortable with crumbs that happen to fall off the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:00 PM

24. Incrementalism is a deceptive term, because it suggests that the measures

 

are moving us in the right direction when what they are really doing is slightly slowing down the bus we are all on as it heads for the edge of the cliff. The "compromises" that take place in normal politics are always going one direction - in the direction of corporate interests, envrionmental degredation, and the disenfranchisement of ordinary citizens. I haven't seen bank CEOs returning ill-gotten gains, or timber companies engaging in re-forestation on federal lands they have clear-cut. Instead, the compromises are about the size of fine they will pay or how much more of the commons they can decimate. In the age of climate change and corporate rule, incrementalism does not cut it, not at least until we have a major shift in direction.

In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement brought such a shift to apartheid practices in the South. This took a mass movement to pressure the President and Congress into enacting federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act. Then it took federal agencies to as well as a myriad of non-profit organizations to ensure that these laws were implemented. It was at that point that incrementalism became appropriate, using the the laws, federal agencies, and litigation to gradually make changes. There were many who preached incrementalism then, too, but I doubt that much would have changed if that mode of change had been accepted.

I think we are in a similar place to the 1960s now, with critical environmental, social, economic, and racial issues coming to a head in ways that are actually much more threatening to our society and our future. We need big changes and they will come one way or another, but electing Bernie would signal some hope that the electoral process offers some hope for achieving change. I do hope that he has advisors who are helping to create a structure of support for an on-going movement, one that could begin electing progressives in Congress and in state and local races.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:09 PM

25. "Some people see things as they are and ask 'why?'...

"I've been told things that have been focus-grouped and poll-tested and say 'why bother?'"*

Gets ya all verklempt, y'know?


* No, not an actual quote, of course. Those old enough to remember Bobby Kennedy will recognize the origin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:15 PM

28. It occurred to me that "incrementalism" is used because "trickle down" was already taken

and in reality incrementalism is just a re-terming of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:24 PM

33. The powers that be (big money interests and corporations) LOVE incrementalism.

The Democrats are in power, they glacially move a few issues to help the average Joe while not doing much about corporate power or wealth concentration. Then the republicans get in power and incrementally move the needle more the corporations' way. Then the Democrats...etc.

For the powers that be, Democrat or republican, it doesn't matter as long as they are incrementalists. The game is rigged in their favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 03:42 PM

49. It's conservatism.

It's preservation of the current social order, holding back progressivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:02 PM

50. Pshaw! History shows us that only incrementalism succeeds

Consider this naive, outlandish unicorns-and-ponies goal for example:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Silly JFK! He should have set a more reasonable, achievable, politically pragmatic goal, such as successfully mixing up a glass of Tang, Instant Breakfast Drink, in zero Gs.

That was in Sept. 1962.

This was less than seven years later:



Some might reasonably question the value of going to the moon, but who can fault the goals of universal single-payer health care and free public college education?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:04 PM

51. It occurs to me

That Bernie hasn't accomplished anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:00 PM

84. Bernie has accomplished a great deal in congress

 

Might as well educate yourself.

Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You

Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:05 PM

52. Yes, I'd rather have nothing

But feel good because I stood on principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:09 PM

54. one step forward, one step back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:12 PM

55. Most of the "incremental" legislation passed under Bill Clinton and POTUS Obama

has served the interest of the corporatists and not the general welfare.

Legislation "sold" as for the general welfare serves to imbed corporatism and transfer wealth upward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:38 PM

61. Umm.. every time Bernie is forced to get specific on how he'd implement a policy,

he's forced to admit that it wouldn't be an overnight change. At the last debate Bernie had to admit that he would not be able to break up the big banks or change the minimum wage to $15/hr overnight. Guess what? That's incrementalism. Hate to break it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 05:50 PM

74. of course he can't make dramatic changes - he struggled with minor changes

he did get a couple of post offices renamed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:59 PM

83. Dammit! Stop making sense please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:13 PM

87. The difference: he will actually WORK to get us there.

 

She belongs to Wall Street and will always protect their interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #87)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:19 PM

88. Do you have any evidence to reassure me that Bernie would "work to get us there?" Because I don't.

He's a career politician (literally) with no real accomplishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #88)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 09:12 PM

89. He is a true statesman and a very accomplished legislator.

 

He figures out how to build bipartisan coalitions of Republicans and progressives to advance goals such as reducing poverty and helping the environment, and he does it in ingenious ways.

Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You

And that is just a sample of what he's done. But it's a good one, so read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 04:44 PM

64. Incrementalism...

...is how you change society without horrendous and overwhelming backlash; like the frog in a gradually boiling pot of water, only this frog really likes guns, hates minorities and if it jumps out of the water it takes away all of your rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:26 PM

75. It seldom rises to even symbolism, it's a dirt-cheap pacification technique. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:36 PM

76. Incrementalism

is slow walking progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:41 PM

79. and when your presumed candidate is on video screaming, "There will never be

 

single payer healthcare in the US", you know that to her, "incrementalism" means "incremental steps toward complete corporate rule".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #79)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:08 PM

86. +1000

 

Truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:56 AM

90. Amen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:57 AM

91. It's reluctantly making a move when everybody is shouting: make it already, we are waiting!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread