I'm so glad that Hillary understands this and is working hard to help our "down-ticket" candidates be more competitive in their races.

from the R's and they control the House and Senate.

We have no choice but to do our best with the circumstances we have got.

I didn't vote for HRC in the primary, partially because the thing I trust her least one (foreign policy) is the thing she can do the most on without Congress, but she and Sanders both address the things I care about. They both, for example, acknowledge that climate change exists, and that maybe the government doesn't need to investigate every single miscarriage, or round up and deport Muslims. I think in the heat of the primary we can forget that there is a basic line of decency and good government that needs to be maintained, and if having that as the bare minimum for what I'll vote for is "incrementalism," then fine.

measures going in the right direction, like addressing global warming. When it comes to neoliberal imperial policy, it may be full-speed ahead. It does make me wonder if an isolationist libertarian might actually be a better long-term choice, though that does not appear to be a choice we have.

The fixes that (politically) can be put in place, must be put in place ... and for those fixes, Incrementalism keeps them in place.

For the fixes that cannot (politically) be put in place; must be approached through incremental steps.

For example, Police violence/misconduct ... there are immediate fixes; but/and, the cultural changes will have to be incremental.

That's where the real war will be fought. Congress is too divided to achieve anything of any major scale.

He can reshape all of it, and we know the shape it will be is the best that can be done.

You know damn well he has zero accomplishments.

We are well past the point where incremental improvements will address economic inequality, global climate change, infrastructure replacement, campaign finance, police violence, and many other issues.

Problems solved.

The question you should be asking yourselves is this: has insisting on everything transforming immediately done any good? I think the rational answer is no. Which leads to the next question: what can be done to at least move us forward?

I would prefer to see rapid change transform us all in so many respects. But since Sanders' approach has failed, it's probably best to stop whining about it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

or liberal or better. So no support for her brand of "incrementalism". It would be things like "just a little means-testing" for Social Security. No sale.

years so he is not part of the solution to your dilemma

Not with 58% of new income going to the top 1%. Not with the top 0.1% owning more wealth than the bottom 90%. Every day that goes by with incrementalism makes the gaps grow even bigger. It's like having cancer and waiting for it to run its course.

Or even this decade.

Almost anything we accomplish will be done incrementally, sure. And we don't have to solve a problem, necessarily, if we effectively provide relief.

Incremental progress can simply make a lot of lives better for a while, and that is success that can be built upon.

I think today's problems can only be solved with incrementalism. That is, assuming you're talking politics.