Incrementalism for its Own Sake
Abraham Lincoln defined conservatism as a preference for the old and tried over the new and untried. And as a general maxim, it’s hard to find one better suited to the conservative temperament. Of course, it’s somewhat ironic that the expositor of this maxim went on to enact one of the greatest, most sweeping changes in policy in American history. The evil of slavery, of course, justified throwing out the old and tried. But it is the perpetual mischief of the progressive to insist that every ill justifies societal overthrow. We conservatives ought to be resistant to the general proposition of rapid wholesale change.
Incrementalism is part of the conservative credo not just as a tactic but as a political good in and of itself. We believe that the government ought to be slow to act and measured when it does because we know that the state operates with an ax, not a scalpel. And that even the most well-intentioned reforms often fail to achieve their goal; worse, oftentimes they exacerbate the problem they intended to solve or create whole new problems. Incrementalism is the most reliable bulwark yet found against the law of unintended consequences.
Incrementalism also creates greater stability in the law. When changes are made gradually, over time it allows them to take root and become part of the firmament of American government. The alternative is the kind of instability we see every time the out party takes the White House and issues a flurry of executive orders undoing various policies of the previous administration.
Most conservatives will have followed me willingly thus far. Many will part company with me henceforth.
Naturally, incrementalism cannot lay claim to being the highest good. And it often conflicts with other goods. The entire exercise of politics is defined by weighing conflicting goods.
Far too many of those who concede the wisdom of prudence in general policymaking would jettison it immediately when it comes to their pet issue. I’ve been ruminating on this theme as I have seen the commentary from the Right regarding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health.
Many seem to think this is the best chance of overturning Roe v Wade that the court and the pro-life movement are likely to get.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am staunchly pro-life. And I believe that Roe was badly decided and should be overturned. However, I think our old friend incrementalism ought to have her say in the debate.
If the existing case law were entirely overturned, and control of the abortion issue were given back to the state government, can we be certain that it would result in fewer abortions? Or would the newly adopted heartbeat bills (banning abortion as early as six weeks) increase the overall instances of abortion by pressuring women to make a decision more rapidly? Any honest broker must admit that both are possible outcomes. And this is only one possible unintended consequence.
And that doesn’t begin to consider the possible political consequences of such a decision. The Democrats are presently unable to muster the will to end the filibuster or pack the Court. If Roe falls, that could be just the kind of issue that would bring the Democratic caucus into line.
None of this is to say that the Supreme Court ought to punt entirely in the Dobbs case. States ought to have a freer hand to regulate abortion than they do at present. But I think it would be a mistake for the court to entirely wipe away the last 50 years of jurisprudence on the issue.
Luckily, that seems like an unlikely outcome. The court is more likely to modify Casey’s “undue burden” standard to give states more ability to restrict abortion without allowing them to prohibit it entirely.
In 2021, this seems like a prudent course of action to me. Some think that the evil of abortion justifies throwing prudence to the wind. They could be right. But I’m not convinced.
In my eyes, gradual reform not revolution is the preferable outcome.