The Power of Incremental Strategies for Societal Change

Today I read the lead article in the Washington Post’s Outlook section which had this provocative and attention-getting headline: “Barack Obama, Conservative.”  Tell that to my friends and family who consider themselves conservative!   But the article’s core point is that President Obama has tended towards being an incrementalist, rather than a revolutionary. 

And as I think about social change and my ideas about it, I have evolved to be more of an incrementalist with each passing decade.  In fact, I was once moved to write this tribute to incremental change based on how I saw Asbury Park, New Jersey gradually transform itself from an eyesore into a thriving city over a decade and a half.

When I think of mentors of mine like Professor Muhammad Yunus and Sam Daley-Harris, they are neither incrementalists/pragmatists nor revolutionaries but rather flexible social entrepreneurs who employed a wide variety of strategies and ideas that could be categorized in either camp.  (I mention them since I repeatedly talk about their influence on me in my book, Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind.)

Certainly quantum leaps in positive social change should be aspired to, promoted, and harnessed when possible.  But in my mind, most durable improvements to society are the result of pursuing known strategies aggressively and by striving to do them at least a little better each passing year.

Underscoring this point, an editorial in today’s Post explores what it took to achieve a breakthrough in treating cystic fibrosis.  It begins thus: “Anyone who thinks the cure for a disease is all about ‘blockbuster’ drugs and scientific ‘breakthroughs’ should consider the long journey that resulted in the recent announcement of major progress against cystic fibrosis.”

Basically, there was a breakthrough in understanding this disease in 1989 but it turned out much harder than initially thought to turn that insight into better treatment options.  While some lost hope, a hardy group of researchers, nonprofits, philanthropists, and civil servants at NIH slogged ahead for three decades and finally got the job done. 

The editorial concludes with an apt reflection on the “three yards and a cloud of dust” types of efforts often required to bring positive societal change: “The achievement is the result of persistence by patient advocates and scientists, who never threw in the towel, even when the goal seemed impossible. A lot of bake sales went into supporting the quest, and that kind of support is priceless.”