An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Quote for the Day: Incrementalism
We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.
But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism. The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic.
Brooks goes on to suggest that the late Sen. Kennedy, born to be an “epic,” “transformational” agent of change, constructed a legacy as “the great gradualist.” Some might consider that an insult. Brooks clearly intends it as a compliment.
3 Responses to “Quote for the Day: Incrementalism”
Regarding “incrementalism” — and pouring hot House water into the Senatorial saucer, to cool it:
Well, it's much more applicable for Brooks to add to the “slow down and calm down” wider chorus that is building during the health care effort, which is what I suspect is the issue here, and it's certainly more appropriate all this year (increasingly so) directed at the frantic and rushing Democrats than it ever was (as it was so widely abused) after the 1994 elections. (Don't forget that “saucer” and “cooling” reference that is certain to be mentioned more than once with this health care effort.)
But I'll add that with “incrementalism,” that term applies to the one-way ratchet and advancing in a partial or piecemeal and increasing fashion rather than all at once. That is the key behind the public option component of the Dem health care effort, and it is described using a “wedge” metaphor in the following writeup, to which I linked just now on another thread, too. It's what this issue is all about.
And it is probably better reading than what Brooks might say in an op-ed or in a “no” television ad.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c46ee230-8cf2-11de-a5…
I think what was true about Ted Kennedy was that he knew when to go for the incrementalist changes and when the momentum and mandate were there for more sweeping change. That's a very valuable skill for a legislator, particularly in the Senate. It's much like a poker player knowing 'when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em.'
“Ted Kennedy …”
I wonder not only about the health care issue (the public option even his absence might still be there, and if not, what would Kennedy seek instead, and what in any case would the GOP see for them), but how Kennedy might have affected the climate bill and other things the Dems have done this year.