Progress is a marathon, not a sprint

Greg Berman and Aubrey Fox, authors of “Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age,” make the case for moderation.

Where does lasting progress come from? 

If you ask social reformers and politicians today, many would say that only “sweeping change” and “bold action” can solve the host of issues confronting the United States – from government gridlock to racial injustice to surging immigration. 

The concept of slow change may not sound appealing in the face of such challenges. But two practitioners of gradual reform, Greg Berman and Aubrey Fox, argue that incrementalism is baked into the American system of government, and even historic events, like the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that appear as giant shifts can often be traced to the accretion of smaller, continuous steps. 

In their book “Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age,” Mr. Berman and Mr. Fox acknowledge that incrementalism has a big image problem. On both the political left and right, individuals who hold moderate or centrist positions are frequently derided as upholding the status quo, and as being old-fashioned and out of touch. 

The authors, who have each run criminal justice reform organizations, wanted to counter the argument that bold action is the best way to reform unjust or broken systems. “We were seeing a lot of people making big promises and talking about change in a way that didn’t feel tethered to reality,” says Mr. Fox in a video interview.

In politics, as in life, change is disruptive and frequently resisted. “Often, your best strategy for making a big change is to break it down into a lot of small pieces,” says Mr. Berman. “There’s a wisdom and common sense” to that approach. “If it’s forgotten, people lose the tool they could be using to get the result they want,” he adds. 

He and Mr. Fox concede that not all incremental change is good, and not all rapid change is bad. Still, polls show that Americans favor a slower pace of reform. “Most people don’t like dramatic change. They don’t feel comfortable with it,” says Mr. Fox. (A good example is the failure of initiatives that aimed to “defund the police.”)

A “go slow” and “do no harm” approach doesn’t lend itself to slogans on T-shirts, but it does allow for many other pro-social benefits. “Incrementalism doesn’t have to be wildly popular,” Mr. Fox says. “But we wanted to frame it more positively.” The authors make a compelling case that incrementalism rooted in honesty, humility, nuance, and respect (what they call core values) can begin to move the needle on even the most intractable problems. And change can happen in a more iterative manner, with time for adjustments as new information becomes available.  

“This book is our attempt to contribute to a kind of pride in the gradual approach,” says Mr. Berman.