In Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age (Oxford University Press), Greg Berman, distinguished fellow of practice at the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation and co-editor of Vital City, and Aubrey Fox, executive director of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, make a compelling case for taking a more incremental approach to policymaking. They argue that if we can dial down the harsh rhetoric on all sides and focus on common-sense approaches, we have a better chance of solving the serious problems facing the nation. They spoke with The National about the virtues of slow and steady progress, how New York City reduced its jail population through incremental reforms, and more.

1. Your book Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age makes the case for gradual, incremental change. A lot of people associate gradualism with ineffectiveness, or with forcing people to wait too long for things to get better. Why do you think it is the best approach to public policy?

Our argument is not that incrementalism is always and forever the right approach. On occasion, there are in fact circumstances (war, depression, etc.) where government decisionmakers must weigh radical change. But, in general, incrementalism should be our default setting.

Both of us have spent the bulk of our professional lives in the nonprofit sector. Many of our friends and colleagues are progressives who seek to radically transform the world. So we are well-acquainted with the critiques of incrementalism, including the perception that it is slow and ineffective.

Incrementalism is not necessarily slow. Nor is it a defense of the status quo. On the contrary. Incrementalism is basically a call for ceaseless change. And incremental reforms can typically be implemented quicker than comprehensive changes. We shouldn’t underestimate the value of this -- making anything happen is a challenge in the American system of government, which is replete with checks and balances, overlapping jurisdictions, and potential veto points.

There is an old saying, often attributed to Winston Churchill, that democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried. The same is true of incrementalism. Whatever flaws there are with the gradual approach are minor compared to the flaws of doing nothing or the flaws of advancing transformative change in a single stroke over the objections of those who disagree.

2. The left has been particularly insistent about what Martin Luther King called “the fierce urgency of now.” What do you say to people like Ibram X Kendi, and many young activists on issues ranging from racial equity to trans rights, who are eager for quick transformation, about why they are wrong to focus on high-speed change?

Make no mistake: we still need visionaries and dreamers. And there will always be a place for activists who seek to increase the salience and urgency around a given issue or policy question. But most of us are -- and should be! -- gradualists.

There are a number of reasons for this. If you talk to people like Jonathan Rauch, who was a prime mover in the fight for gay marriage, you will find that some of the most significant changes in American history are the product of years, if not decades, of incremental advances. So incremental reforms can, over time, add up to the kind of transformative change that young activists are seeking.

Experience tells us that rapid change almost always induces major backlash, particularly when the change in question is not supported by an overwhelming majority of the public. Incremental reforms reduce this risk. This is particularly important in our current political environment, where the electorate is so narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

3. Many people believe that the American public – and indeed publics in democracies around the world – are polarizing, with the far left and far right both gaining adherents. But you argue that there is strong popular support for an incremental approach to problem solving. What makes you think this?

There are some indications that Democrats and Republicans have become increasingly polarized in recent years. But it is worth remembering that even in the most recent presidential election, when more people voted than at any time in recent memory, fully one third of Americans stayed home. And many of the people who did make it to the polls are basically disengaged, low-information voters. A lot of Americans fundamentally don’t care about politics. So polarization is a real problem, but we should be careful not to overstate the degree to which opinions have shifted to the far right or the far left.

For our book, we commissioned a YouGov survey of more than 1,000 registered voters. Respondents were asked how they wanted American government to work. Only 34% said that government should make big changes. By contrast, 45% favored an incremental approach to change and 21% wanted government not to change things at all.

In general, there is very little evidence that Americans want to pay more taxes to support a more activist government. But polling does suggest that there is solid support for a range of incremental changes designed to ameliorate social problems. For example, Americans don’t want to defund the police, but they are supportive of a broad range of reforms to policing. One of the core challenges of our politics at the moment is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem particularly focused on advancing the kind of incremental change that the majority of Americans would like to see.

4. Are there any issues on which you think gradualism is not the best approach? For example, some people argue that global climate change is a crisis that demands enormous changes in policy right away. Can we be gradualist about climate change?

We must confess that we are not climate experts. It may well be the case that climate change is one of the rare issues that demands non-incremental change. But even here, we would argue that the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good. Moving incrementally would still mean taking immediate action to move away from the current status quo. Incrementalism would also help environmental advocates deal with an inconvenient truth: they have not yet succeeded in convincing millions of Americans of the urgency or righteousness of their cause.

5. A particularly interesting story you tell is about the reduction in New York City’s jail population, which you say has been achieved not through a single radical empty-the-jails decree, but through a range of small-bore reforms. Can you discuss why you think this story supports your overall gradualist approach?

This is a case study that we know particularly well because both of us have worked for the past 25+ years in criminal justice reform in New York. Playing a bit part in the New York story is a big reason why both of us have become incrementalists.

Basically, up until the last couple of years, both crime and incarceration went down almost every single year in New York. This was true for decades. It is hard to overstate what a big deal this is. A city that was once an international symbol of lawlessness was transformed into the safest big city in the United States. And a daily jail population that topped out at over 22,000 people during the crack epidemic was gradually reduced to the point where it became possible to talk about shuttering the notorious Rikers Island jail complex.

The benefits of both of these developments have been profound – literally hundreds of thousands of people spared the harms of crime victimization and time in jail. In a time when people are skeptical about government’s ability to move the needle, New York’s success in reducing both crime and incarceration should be celebrated.

The argument we make in the book is that what happened in New York is a case of “accidental incrementalism.” There was no single policy change that created this new reality. Rather, it was a case of dozens of independent actors making relatively small changes that added up to something bigger. Some of these changes have gotten a fair amount of attention, like the way that police in New York changed their philosophy and used data more aggressively. But others have been less heralded, like the way that nonprofit organizations and business improvement districts have helped to improve neighborhood safety throughout the city.

6. It feels like in these high-octane times – with everyone shouting at each other on Fox News, Twitter, MSNBC, and everywhere else – it may be hard to sell people on the virtues on gradualism. Are you optimistic that your message about its virtues can resonate today?

We think we are writing into a strong headwind. Our media environment, and Twitter in particular, seems to discourage nuance. So “optimism” is probably too strong a word, but we are hopeful. We don’t think we are alone in being turned off by the shouting and the constant churning of the culture wars. What we’re offering our readers is a message of hope and pragmatism. We think change is possible, that government can be a force for good, and that polarization can be transcended. But an important element to achieving all of these goals is to set realistic expectations and to adopt an approach that doesn’t instantly turn off millions of Americans. That’s the promise of incrementalism.