I don't understand how incrementalism is in opposition to bold clear policies. Implementing policies in an incremental manner isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I think can result in progress instead of stagnation because the alternative is radical change.

@bingst In theory, yes, and sometimes it's even the only option. But I see Clinton-style incrementalism as a big impediment to her getting elected -- which, of course, she didn't. There are NO options other than bold initiatives on the climate front for example. The situation is the same for health care unless you don't give a fig about people suffering and coming to economic ruin in the meantime. If you're an unemployed coal mine worker you can't just say we're going to close the coal mines to save the environment, you have to take care of the displaced workers or they'll turn on you.

The chronic timidity of liberalism is what I'm against, not caution as such.

@mordant I think I get where you're coming from. Perhaps I tend to be more pragmatic. For instance, about climate change, my current thinking is that nothing substantial will be done in curbing the use of fossil fuels, so I'm thinking more about the removal and sequestration of CO2 with an eye on simplicity and amount.

@bingst I used to think about this more like you but I've come to the conclusion that it's too defeatist even for my somewhat cynical personality. We're the wealthiest and most technologically advanced nation on earth, the only reason we can't get anything substantive done is we lack the vision and will, and we lack those things only because the rich won't get their grimy mitts off the $$.

Jeff Bezos could single-handedly lift whole nations out of poverty if he were intelligent about how he did it.

It's fine to do remediation, and we'll likely need that, too, but it won't get us where we need to be by itself, and if that's all we do it will tend to perpetuate the unvirtuous cycle that got us here. There's a pragmatic take for you