Creeping Incrementalism is On The Run
Incrementalism is not by any means a new concept, however, when added to the work of Edward L. Bernays, it should be perhaps more troubling these days. Add in the work of Dr. Alfred W. McCoy, (“Policing America’s Empire” is the book being referred to in this particular case) and we can clearly see that there is a concerted effort to control we the people and never had any intention to serve them.
Author and Historian James Scott argues that “The prime aim of the Modern State is to establish metrics for rendering a social hieroglyph into a legible and administratively more convenient format.” Combine all of this together and it may even start to look like we the people have been played like a cheap fiddle.
Granted, far too many people remain far too ignorant of history, and that portion of this article may be a bit boring to some, but like history itself, this will eventually lead us to where we are today and give us at least a hint of that which is yet to come. From a historical standing, we are most definitely in a very bad position and if we do not wake up to reality today, it may very well may be too late for all of us.
The official study of Incrementalism is by and large credited to the work of Charles E. Lindblom, a US political scientist, who developed his theories during the nineteen fifties. Within the basis for his belief was the theory that rational decision making was unattainable.
Charles E. Lindblom believed that policy makers were largely incapable of creating new policy based on a value-maximizing decision derived from a rational analytic process, as was the predominant belief of the day.
While I would tend to agree by and large, when this is looked at from a historical perspective, in addition to the works of people like Alfred W. McCoy, Bernays, James Scott and others who may have less than complete confidence in the ability of government to serve rather than seeking to be rulers, it should be troubling to everyone.
The fact of the matter is that we are already ensconced in a civil war.
That statement should sound so far-fetched and incredible that it can be easily dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately, for those who have a keen understanding of history, the tragic truth of that statement will be readily apparent.
Our current situation has been compared by some to the Spanish Civil War that was fought from 1936 until 1939, ending just in time for a new global war to further divide the nation.
The rationale behind this comparison is that it was not at all uncommon for large swathes of the towns and cities would remain untouched while bloody battles destroyed other portions of the cities and countryside. At this stage of the new civil war in the United States, we are fortunate as it has not yet devolved to that level of violence, yet make no mistake, as we are in the midst of a civil war.
We have politicians now actively calling for the destruction of government. We have openly avowed Marxists demanding that the cities and towns be left bereft of police or any formal protection. While it is unlikely that any reasonable person would deny the need for either political or police reform, these Marxists and other Communist factions are not calling for reform.
Had they demanded the immediate disbanding of all police, the vast majority of people would immediately disavow that as madness. Through the principles of creeping incrementalism, the first cries would be for police and/or political reform. Over the course of time, there would be claims that police reform was not working and would slowly introduce the idea of disbanding the police.
But Today, Creeping Incrementalism is Moving at a Flat Out Run.
We went directly from calls to de-fund the police to demands to disband the police. BLM Marxist activists in an ironic action, tragic as it may be, that should be looked at much more closely than it has been as well. Ostensibly at least, the Black Lives Matter movement was originally started because of the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Yet now, despite this claim remaining on their website, we are supposed to believe that the BLM movement is expressly protesting (read: rioting) police violence against black people. This is now used as a reason to excuse their violent response, as police killed nine unarmed black men in 2019.
Never mind the fact that BLM rioters have killed more innocent black people in somewhere around a month and a half of rioting as police did in the entire year of 2019.
Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
There is no consideration for these black lives. There is no consideration for the black lives lost in inner city violence in black, inner city communities. This is not a movement focused on innocent black lives being lost. If it was, I would stand with them personally.
I know a whole lot of people would. I would stand with the family of Dan Shaver. While Dan Shaver was not black, he was killed while trying to follow conflicting police commands while laying prone on the floor. I would stand proudly with the family of anybody who was unjustly killed by anyone for any reason.
Yet republicans tried to introduce a bill to implement comprehensive police reform including removing their immunity from prosecution and a great many other and democrats instantly shot it down. Ironically, it is not all that far removed in some aspects as the bill put forth by the democrats. Neither of which it should be noted, has been enacted in any way.
In the early days of creeping incrementalism that would have been a good starting point. But creeping incrementalism continues at a full run and now these same democrats are demanding police be disbanded ... never mind that reform.
There is no satisfying the BLM movement or politicians it would seem. Running incrementalism is such these days that ... “just confederate statues” turns into the destruction of black heroes of these united States like Frederick Douglass. A statue of the 54th Massachusetts, the first black unit mustered in to the War Between the States.
For each demand given in to, an additional demand will immediately take its place. There is no creeping incrementalism or even any real sense of incrementalism at all. Once a demand has been met, a new demand instantly appears.
Obama Inspired, Taxpayer Funded Arab Spring
Rather than looking at our current civil war as a comparison the Spanish Civil War, it seems more akin to the Obama inspired and US taxpayer funded Arab Spring. Riots and uprisings are relatively limited. People can sit and enjoy a coffee on one side of town while people are engaging in rioting, looting and pillaging two blocks over.
In the case of the Arab Spring, perhaps the reasoning is different.
In the US, it seems that we are in the early stages of an ideological battle and the Marxists believe that they can change the cities and the rest of the nation will follow. They have not made it to the rural areas of these united States, and it would probably be wise not to, as this would almost certainly result in an armed confrontation.
If you want to head into the rural areas of these united States and sit down, enjoy some barbecue and beer, and talk about the need for reform and how we can stand united to implement reform, you would likely find a host of allies.
If you head into the rural areas with rioting and looting in mind, you should know that people will defend their properties, their homes, their families and their lands. If you believe that transforming the cities into lawless centers of chaos and corruption will lead to the rural areas banding together to join you, think again.
Whether you realize it or not, the people of these united States are in fact waking up. You may think or even believe that bypassing incrementalism will win the day, but you may soon discover, at the end of the day you will most likely be running the other way.
Let us know what you think please!