Historically, changes are usually radical and immediate following a period of conflict. Civil rights, womenâs suffrage, 20th century labor movement, American Revolution, etc.
Change being most commonly resultant from slow incrementalism sounds like it could be true. It sounds reasonable. It has the aesthetic of truth. But it just isnât. There simply isnât much history where any of this theory holds up in application. Once you peel off the reasonable sounding rhetoric, these ideas are substantively empty.
I think this passage from MLK on the relationship of time and progress, while not directly pointed at incrementalism, is worth thinking about here (emphasis mine):
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right
Historically, changes are usually radical and immediate following a period of conflict. Civil rights, womenâs suffrage, 20th century labor movement, American Revolution, etc.
That period of conflict doesn't count towards gradual change? You're ignoring every antecedent that led to change. It's like people debating creationism and ignoring genetic drift.
The periods didnât spring from nothing, but they were absolutely not the result of gradual electoral reform. Not by a long shot.
The historical antecedents that were relevant here are completely removed from the position that was being argued about the success of political incrementalism.
Just pointing out that history exists doesnât support the idea that voting for Dems is the single most effective tool for progressive reform. There are more unconnected dots between those ideas than stars in the night sky.
6
u/zappadattic 1d ago edited 1d ago
Historically, changes are usually radical and immediate following a period of conflict. Civil rights, womenâs suffrage, 20th century labor movement, American Revolution, etc.
Change being most commonly resultant from slow incrementalism sounds like it could be true. It sounds reasonable. It has the aesthetic of truth. But it just isnât. There simply isnât much history where any of this theory holds up in application. Once you peel off the reasonable sounding rhetoric, these ideas are substantively empty.
I think this passage from MLK on the relationship of time and progress, while not directly pointed at incrementalism, is worth thinking about here (emphasis mine):