Thread by @rgunns

i'm so tired of these constant arguments about vision vs. incrementalism. all of the articles basically say the same thing.

can we get some new angles? some new voices? this deserves to be talked about as more than a DC, intraparty squabble. 1/

nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/…

besides, this framing always misses the most important ?s: what policies do we need to SOLVE the problem? how do everyday folks - not just elites – define the problem? what are they asking us to solve? how do we do that? who is suffering and how do we serve them *fully*? 2/

it seems to me that most folks aren't proposing BIG IDEAS (*cue scary music*) to make themselves seem important or set themselves apart. it's because the problems are just that damn big. and the levels of suffering are just that damn high. 3/

we also need to weigh the success of incrementalism as a long term strategy, beyond the passage of the initial legislation. incrementalism is designed to be a series of small, advancing policy steps that eventually lead to a full solution. 4/

but in our hypercompetitive political system, one party rarely has leadership for long enough to put forward – much less pass – the rest of the steps. so what was supposed to be a first step becomes the entire path, rather than one stepping stone. 5/

THEN we have to fight to the death to keep that stepping stone in place, which usually means we're not advancing the next steps. and when folks do put forward the next policy step – or a policy that bundles a few steps into one – people pop off on them, Us style. 6/

meanwhile, we're creating a bunch of inefficiencies in the system by trying to patch the holes created by a policy that, at best, was *never* designed to fully resolve the problem, and at worst, was not designed to solve the problem AND is completely inept at serving key pops. 7/

and before anyone jumps on me about being biased, i don't think incrementalism is inherently stupid. i actually think that it has its place. if you look at the policies we wrote for the abdul campaign, you'll see that they're actually a mix of bold and incremental steps. 8/

that's because, to me, it's a matter of priorities. where do you need to go fast? where can you afford to go slow WITHOUT hurting or discarding those who marginalized or who are left out of the current system? where are the places where we just need to get the ball rolling? 9/

also, implementation is really where incrementalism comes in. all policy – even bold policy – needs to be rolled out well, and that can mean ratcheting up over time. but you still need the full legislation so you have the mandate (and funding!) to get through ALL the steps. 10/

incrementalism is not a gospel –particularly not given the scale of the problems we face right now. nor is it incompatible with bold vision. so can we please stop pitting them against each other and start talking about HOW WE ARE GOING TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS FOR REAL. 11/

the only thing that should be gospel in policy is resolving the issues (as people define them!) and doing it in a way where we don't treat people like disposable costs. 12/

and before anyone says "but we can't do these things because of the systems we have," let me be clear. i don't believe that the systems we have now – which WE built – should stand in the way of responding to suffering. we designed them before; we can design them again. 13/

it won't be easy. but neither is being marginalized in an economy designed to profit off of your exploitation. so let's maybe not act like changing our systems is the most painful thing imaginable, esp. when it's the very thing that would make life bearable for millions. 14/

it's a bit... dramatic. 15/