What we kept hearing throughout the campaign is that Clinton supporters reject Bernie’s suggestions because they are hard to implement and too lofty in their purpose for our pedestrian and incrementalist minds. The truth, however, is that Bernie’s college plan is very easy to implement. The process of destroyong academic self-governance and expanding the number of administrators who are invested with an ever-growing capacity to control professors and make our lives difficult has been under way for years. There is nothing audacious or ground-breaking in speeding this process up some more.
This is why when I hear the word “incrementalism”, I know I’m talking to somebody who is not smart and gets all his information from stupid places like Twitter and Mahablog. But hey, what a great attempt at branding: attach the word “incrementalism” to the opposing side and you never even have to read yoru own damn proposals. The Other is the evildoer, so you must be in the right.
Clarissa's Blog 
I think you misread the plan.
Mine would be different, of course, and simpler than either — refund massively, restore the old California master plan and spread it nationwide (it was brilliant, and more advanced than any of the ideas being currently floated).
But those caveats aren’t about creating extra administrative layers, they are about not doing so.
LikeLike
Here is just the first part of my analysis of the plan to which nobody responded anything specific at the time: https://clarissasblog.com/2016/04/26/why-sanderss-college-plan-is-horrible-part-i/
LikeLike
That is what I am referring to, I think this analysis is a serious misreading
LikeLike
“A state that receives a grant under this section shall use any remaining grant funds and matching funds required under this section to increase the quality of instruction and student support services by carrying out the following: A) Expanding academic course offerings to students.”
“Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as professional development opportunities, office space and shared governance in the institution.”
How will federal control over our office space, for crying out loud, and of our course offerings help us? What’s wrong with our course offerings? Why and how should they be “expanded”? Why can’t we be left in peace to decide which courses to offer in our disciplines? This is deranged, that’s what it is.
LikeLike
There’s another way to look at “incrementalism.” Many years ago, a poli sci prof made the case that decision making in the US government — especially by Congress — always involves incrementalism. Congress doesn’t do bold programs. Budgeting looks at the edges of spending rather than at the interior core. Wildofsky argued that change is always incremental. It’s only in rare circumstances that bold actions are possible, typically situations in which Congress is willing to cede leadership to the President and approve what he wants. Those occasions are very rare (FDR’s first term or LBJ’s first year in office after Kennedy was killed).
We have ample demonstration this year that US politicians aren’t risk takers. Most run for office user someone else’s money and there’s no downside if they lose — they get a plush job with a lobbyist or some such. They really don’t incur any penalties for making bad choices. It’s a great gig for someone who can’t cope with the real world, at least in the US.
LikeLike
Problem is, Bernie’s college plan is as far from being “risky” or innovative as anything one can imagine. It follows the tendencies we have seen in higher ed for decades. More administration, less academic self-governance and academic freedom. And a vague and unfulfillable promise of funding if you agree. What’s new, risky or anti-incrementalist about that?
LikeLike
Olof Palme, 1927 – 1986, Swedish prime minister, talked about “the tyranny of the small steps”. Similar is the fable about the frog in a slowly heated pan, and the old Swedish saying “If you give somebody your little finger, he will soon take the whole hand”. Your neighbor ask you for a loan of 10 dollars, he gets it, and before long returns and wants a loan of 20 or 50 dollars, and so on. Romance scammers use that tactic.
In these days the figure of speech is used in situation when schools provide alternative dishes for Muslim students when the others eat pork – Then the Muslim students want full halal food – and after that, banning pork for everybody all the days of the week. Muslim students in US schools get the day off at Muslim holidays – and now they demand that the schools should be closed for everybody on Muslim holidays. If every religion or sect follows that, schools would hardly be open any day at all.
Similar is the figure of “the slippery slope”. The opposite to these is a revolutionary change.
LikeLike