The past few weeks have been a challenge for those of us who fight against the mass incarceration and criminalization of our communities. Yet again we are faced with a “lesser of two evils” presidential election. And though we’d be lying if we said the recent uptick in enthusiasm for this race wasn’t contagious, there are serious concerns from the Left about all contenders’ histories and impacts. For those of you struggling with the implications of participating in a system this morally complicated, this concept is for you:
Progressive incrementalism is a strategic approach to social and political change that advocates for achieving reforms through a series of gradual steps rather than through sweeping, immediate transformation. Regrettably, infuriatingly and yet undeniably similar to Harm Reduction strategies, this method focuses on practical, manageable changes that accumulate over time to create substantial, lasting changes. Some may have heard this referred to as “shifting the Overton Window”.
By advancing reforms incrementally, this approach seeks to build broad consensus and minimize resistance, making it easier to implement and sustain changes. Many advocates argue that progressive incrementalism is more pragmatic and flexible, allowing for adjustments based on feedback and evolving circumstances, and reducing the risk of unintended consequences. Critics, however, contend that this method can be too slow in addressing urgent issues and may necessitate compromises that dilute the original goals, potentially perpetuating existing inequities.
Progressive incrementalism has been a pivotal strategy in supporting legislation by gradually building a foundation for comprehensive reforms through a series of smaller, strategic steps.
For example: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the United States was an incremental milestone in health care reform, following previous measures like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Each of these legislative efforts expanded healthcare access incrementally, paving the way for the ACA's broader impact. Similarly, environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act evolved through successive amendments that incrementally tightened regulations to better protect natural resources. In the realm of civil rights, incremental legislative advancements, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and subsequent acts in 1960 and 1964, gradually dismantled institutionalized segregation and discrimination. By methodically introducing and passing smaller, targeted laws, advocates of progressive incrementalism have been able to navigate political complexities, build consensus, and ultimately achieve significant, long-term legislative success.
But incrementalism hasn’t only been used for progressive policies. It's incredibly important to acknowledge that this strategic effort has been incredibly successful when used to repeal legislation, programs and policies. Conservative incrementalism over a period of decades has been a proven strategy for The Federalist Society, Americans United for Life, The National Rifle Association, and The Heritage Foundation.
In fact, incrementalism has been a strategic tool for the radical right in the United States to implement increasingly stringent abortion restrictions, ultimately leading to a significant rollback of reproductive rights. Following the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade decision - which legalized abortion nationwide - anti-abortion activists and lawmakers adopted a gradual approach to eroding this right. We celebrated the success of Roe but over the next several decades, opponents began by passing laws that imposed incremental restrictions. We assumed that Roe v Wade was now the “law of the land” but slowly, over time, these conservative incrementalist strategies started chipping away at abortion access with mandatory waiting periods, parental consent and notification requirements for minors, and targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws that mandated onerous and often medically unnecessary standards for clinics.
In the early 1980s, Abortion clinic bombings in the United States began to take place. The first notable incident occurred on May 26, 1984, when a clinic in Pensacola, Florida, was bombed by Michael Griffin, an anti-abortion activist. This attack marked the beginning of a series of violent actions against abortion providers, including bombings, arson, and other forms of violence. Directly related to the passage of Roe, these acts were part of a broader campaign by extremist anti-abortion groups to intimidate and shut down clinics, deter healthcare providers, and limit access to abortion services through fear and violence. The violence escalated in the 1990s, with several high-profile attacks and murders of abortion providers, contributing to a climate of fear and heightened security measures at clinics across the country.
And true to form, pro-choice advocates responded to abortion clinic bombings with a comprehensive strategy aimed at ensuring the safety of clinics and healthcare providers while maintaining access to reproductive services. They successfully lobbied for the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, which made it a federal crime to obstruct access to reproductive health services through force or intimidation. They enhanced security measures, increased police protection and the installation of security cameras were implemented at clinics. Volunteer clinic escort programs were established to help patients safely enter clinics amidst protests. Public awareness campaigns were launched to highlight the violence faced by abortion providers and patients, thereby rallying public support and pressuring lawmakers to act. Legal organizations provided crucial support, defending clinics and providers in court, while pursuing litigation against those responsible for harassment and violence. Financial assistance was offered to clinics for repairs and increased security, and public demonstrations were organized to show solidarity and advocate for reproductive rights.
But they failed to build on the success of Roe v Wade with more enhancements for the protection of - not only abortion access - but reproductive health in general. In fact, the introduction of birth control pills happened in the early 60’s and there were significant improvements through various legal, medical, and social advancements. The birth control pill paved the way for abortion access and it was done using the progressive version of incrementalism.
These incremental - but long lived - efforts to pass measures specifically designed to chip away at abortion access without directly challenging Roe continued for decades. Over time, these small steps cumulatively made it harder for women to obtain abortions, particularly in conservative states. This strategy laid the groundwork for more aggressive restrictions, such as heartbeat bills that ban abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and laws imposing gestational limits.
The culmination of these efforts was seen in the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe and permitted states to enact even more draconian abortion bans, which have had horrific consequences for many people seeking an abortion.
And make no mistake: Packing the supreme court was the result of years of conservative incrementalism. And not just the Supreme Court. Fueled by $250 million in secret “dark money” contributions, Extreme Conservative Federal and state court judges were appointed by the previous administration and these positions are not “refundable”. These judges have lifetime appointments and impact huge chunks of judicial real estate throughout the United States.
Progressive Incrementalism isn’t something we love. And even trying to frame voting as a harm reduction strategy feels - well - nothing short of insulting. But once again, here we are. And as distasteful as it is, the issue at hand isn't who will be POTUS…because the presidency is just ONE JOB.
Our job as activists and advocates is to educate and inform our legislators and policy makers to create policies and programs that meet the needs of the communities we serve.
Our communities are counting on us.
And while they might listen to a rant about the evils of capitalism and the follies of colonialism while they are waiting in line for clean syringes or to see if there will be a shelter bed available for them that night, they would probably appreciate knowing that the advocate in front of them will still be there after the election. Because the 2024 election is just another day to our beloved community and if they and their family are still hungry, unhoused, in jail, jobless, in a violent relationship, without healthcare or access to the medication they need, or watching their children dying as a result of an international failure to end wars, don’t be the one to tell them you decided to simply not vote for the possibility of possibility because you didn’t like the choices.
Comentários