[lbo-talk] doom

[Scissors MacGillicutty]

These are important points lost on many who, by temperment, favor
incremental change/partial reforms.  There's nothing wrong with
incrementalism as long as it actually leads to further *increases*. 
Good criteria for evaluating a proposed increamental change might to
ask if opens possibilities for further advances and if it makes sense
as part of a larger strategy.  If the answers to both questions are
yes, then fine.  If the answer to either is no, then back to the
drawing board.

smg

On 3/25/06, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:


> The kind of incrementalism that Nathan seems to be advocating
> here, lacks the kind of strategic sense that exists on the Right.
> The Right is interested in building up over time a constituency
> that will perceive themselves as not benefiting from social
> programs like SS or Medicare and the way to do that is enact
> relatively limited reforms that will divert segments of the
> population out of these programs into privately-based schemes.
> Nathan's strategy seems to one of enacting narrowly based
> programs that will benefit relatively small portions of the
> population and hope that the beneficial consequences of these
> programs will convince others to support broader programs.
> But that seems unlikely to happens. Supposing that Nathan
> is successful in getting his narrow-based programs enacted
> into law, these programs will be very vulnerable to cutbacks
> and outright abolition under future Republican administrations,
> since the GOP will always be able to make the argument to
> voters as to why their hard earned tax money should be
> spent on programs that benefit "others," while providing
> no benefit to themselves.  US political history over the
> past thirty years suggests that this has been a winning
> political strategy for the Republicans.
>