BTW

I will not be commenting on what is happening in Syria, with our blessing, or at least complicity. It's horrible, and yes, Turkey is responsible, but we're pretty culpable.

I hope all the putrid scum who wrote in Bernie! or voted for Stein are feeling guilty at the blood on their hands. But at least they ensured their own, personal purity!

Yech.

After an economics Nobel prize announced this AM by an Indian newspaper with the headline "Indian-American MIT Prof Abhijit Banerjee and wife wins Nobel in Economics" (*) I'm feeling pretty jaded about women's place in the world.

So when I went looking for an image for what will hopefully be my next post, using the search term "leaping over a chasm" I was already somewhat primed.

Image search on bing: the first female leaping over said chasm is a drawing, search result #12.

Image search on google: #23 was the first woman actually leaping over a chasm. There was one female figure in one of the others, but she was about to fall/swan dive over the edge of a cliff, which is clearly NOT what I was looking for.

That's kinda pathetic, people.

(*) They have since amended the headline, and added a very cool graphic of the three researchers that share the Nobel, and reference all three of them by name. Good work!

Chasms, incrementalism, and structural change.

One of the big insults of the 2016 primary was St Bernie's supporters calling Clinton voters "incrementalists" (and neo-liberal shills and a few other like insults. And... And...).

Incrementalism, getting somewhere step by step, rather than in a gigantic leap, was seen as evil, and we were told it was because we were old, or afraid of dreaming.

I'm seeing the same thing this time around, with Warren and her supporters calling for profound structural change.

Here's the problem with that: it leaves the vulnerable unprotected if it fails.

We've all seen, I'm sure, the inspirational poster that shows a human being (see previous post: a man!) jumping over a chasm with a trite caption of "You can't cross a chasm in two steps" or some such.

If you succeed in jumping over the chasm, great.

If you fail.... you're at the bottom of the crevasse.

In the real word, the jumpers who succeed are the male, the strong, the tall, the young. Disabled people, short or fat people, un-fit people, old people... well, good luck with that. IOW, in a general manner, the privileged get to jump over, and land safely on the other side. The not-so-privileged... don't.

From a political standpoint, what is better than trying to jump over chasms with full-out structural changes is building a bridge, building stairs. Taking smaller steps, yes, but making sure the progress is secure and that people who aren't starting with the best chances of making the leap have a path to do so.

It's not a question of "playing it safe" or "not being idealistic" it's a question of protecting the most vulnerable, who often have the most to lose, if the leap doesn't go as expected.

Because, yes, if things work out, and we can all leap over the chasm, that would be great. Health care, free college, and a living wage are now ours, yay! But... if we can't, and we lose the ACA, for example, who is going to hurt the most? Not the young, fit, privileged ones.

Big structural change comes at a great risk to some people in society, even if they would benefit from it if it succeeds. However, the noxious effects, if it fails, would be felt first, primarily, and most profoundly by those same people.

It's not that I won't want a Nordic style society by tomorrow, damnit! It's that going for M4A rather than a public option to the ACA, or insisting on banishing private insurance rather than making them do what we need them to under the threat and influence of a public option, present profound risks. If it fails, when the chips fall, who will be left with no insurance and no public safety net?

Incrementalism is progress that brings everyone along at the same time, progress that keeps the vulnerable secure as we move forward. I can't ever think that that is a bad thing.