Incrementalism is dominant in the affairs of government. Reformers come and go. Occasionally they have an impact, but usually it is no more than an increment added on to what exists.
The past is powerful. Civil servants, politicians, and citizens who benefit from what is do not want to lose it for something that may be better. It is especially difficult to take money from a program that benefits one group of people to pay for something that will help others.
Simple assertions that a government must do this or that are seldom helpful. Policy accretions and judicial precedents limit the capacity of any proposal to affect the change that its advocates desire.
Dramatic changes do occur. A crisis may produce the condition that leads people to accept something new, even at the cost of losing something old.
President Obama is facing an intersection of several crises. First up was the threat of economic collapse. Whatever happens with that will limit the money he can spend on any of the other crises. Among them is the prospect of military collapse in Afghanistan. He talked about transferring military personnel from what seemed like success in Iraq. Now multiple attacks in Baghdad have killed 160 in the space of two days. The president may have to reconsider the option of downsizing. And with the Taliban threatening Islamabad and even Karachi, things may get worse before they get better.
Iran is another problem. Its leaders made positive responses to an American proposal to begin talks, but now assert that they must do what they want.
The latest panic focuses on an illness that may spread from Mexico. It would help if there was better health care in the United States, especially for the poor. All those people having ties to Mexico may not come forward with their headaches and sniffles. And with insurance companies demanding their considerable slice of health expenditures, there may not be a thorough, quick, or cheap fix for the country's ills. In any case, it will not happen in time to deal with this health crisis. Maybe this one will spur an increment of progress that lessens the impacts of a later one.
Israel also figures in these musings. Forty-two years ago it experienced the Six-Day War, then settlement in the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai. Those in the Sinai were modest, and opportunity came a decade later to reverse course for the sake of peace with Egypt.
Israel's presence in the West Bank has continued to grow. Arabs want to turn back the clock. A substantial number of Israelis do not even want to stop where they are in hopes of getting an agreement with Palestinians they have come to know, but not to trust.
The Golan is another story. Peace with Syria is tempting, and the Golan is not right up against major Israeli cities. However, Syria has ties with Iran and others that may keep it from more than occasional expressions about the Golan and peace.
As far as it is possible to tell from the media, Israelis with responsibilities for defense and foreign policy have been arguing about Iran. The threat is considerable. Sanctions have not deterred those who deny the Holocaust and condemn Israel to oblivion. President Obama's commitment to engagement is not assuring. Will Mutually Assured Destruction work against the mad mullahs, or equally fanatic Muslims who may gain control of Pakistan?
Thomas Jefferson occasionally tired of piecemeal reform. "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing." "The tree of liberty must . . . be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Those sentiments are inspiring but dangerous, especially for intellectuals who may be the first to demand change, and the first to be trundled off to something unpleasant. It is safer to stand on the sidelines, and wonder what, if anything, will change dramatically in response to multiple crises.
Some may dream of starting over and making the world rational and stable.
Not likely.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il