Incremental Is Fundamental

Many of us are in occupations where innovation and creativity are essential. But an unnecessary divide exists between the valuation of sweeping changes and incremental advances. We should not need to choose – this isn’t a case of mutual exclusivity. Of course, we need big ideas and bold moves. Sure, throw the bomb for a touchdown, swing for the fences. But small things, measured steps, can be important and inventive, too. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” 

Upsides to any method or process cannot be guaranteed, of course. It’s important to acknowledge that incrementalism can fail us or derail us, just as big ideas can. One of the most notable (and shameful) examples is the nearly hundred-year span from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (and then another hundred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act). And while Lincoln deserves high praise for his role, we need to remember it took him a couple of decades to fully embrace freedom and citizenship for Black people. 

Fortunately, his vast and open mind let in powerful, righteous voices like Frederick Douglass, the freedom seeker who became one of the most important leaders in the fight for abolition and civil rights. It’s notable that Douglass wanted rapid change with the “brave march of a storming party” but came to grips with the “slow progress of a cautious siege.” He and Lincoln understood the political realities. The President knew he had to bring as much of the nation along with them as he could – what he called the “necessary preparation of the public mind.” 

Modern political leaders seem to be catching on to incrementalism but for the wrong reasons. While they often campaign on platforms of big ideas, political rivalries, limited resources, and the complexity of most problems squeeze progress into watered-down initiatives. Or, more common these days, an agreement to simply keep the lights on; passing a stop-gap budget is now viewed as a big win. Reaching across the aisle, finding common ground, and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement have become rarities or even signs of weakness.

Politicians are also helping to accelerate our ever-shrinking attention spans. Ideas are being crushed into attention-seeking social media posts. There is a lack of interest, will, or ability to explain complex ideas and to inspire wider acceptance. Ideologic pandering is replacing idea generation. If it can’t be turned into a catch phrase (“America First”) or a chant (“Build the Wall”), complicated, multidimensional ideas have little chance of being turned into a plan or program.

Preparation requires good communication, using messages that combine both rational and emotional elements. There are too many leaders, though, who get it terribly wrong. Deciding to make a change is often done without thought as to how the change will be communicated. They confuse change communication with checking off a couple of boxes. Sending out a memo to employees or a press release to the public overlooks the reality that change communication is a process – a process to be managed. 

The details, the message, and the messenger all influence the individual and the organization. It can rally a group around an idea or it can alienate the very people required to generate a successful outcome. John Kotter had it right in his book, “Leading Change.” Condensing and paraphrasing some of his eight incremental steps, leaders need to establish the need for change, gather and empower advocates, articulate a vision for what awaits, communicate up and down the organization, define the roles people will have and the processes needed for future success, and demonstrate wins along the way.

It’s great to have big ideas, it's OK to be impatient, we should embrace change. At the same time, we need to be thinking strategically and develop a plan about what needs to be accomplished, over what timeline, and with what resources. We need to define the milestones and recognize each accomplishment as we maintain a focus on the ultimate goal. Civil rights activist Alice Wine had wise words: “Keep your eyes on the prize.”

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

Searching for Optimism in 2023

I’m trying really hard to remain an optimist. As we grow older, conversations become graver. Life gets more complicated and less certain. There’s less talk about hopes for the future and more about missed opportunities. 

Our world gives us too many reasons to complain and I do my best to pull out of what is sometimes a very appealing spiral. Sometimes it takes a conscious, sustained effort to remain on a positive trajectory. When others try to engage me in a grumble session, yes, I will most likely join in – at least for a while. Then, I’ll usually catch myself. 

It’s not about ignoring the negative; this is not an exercise in mutual exclusivity. We must continue to confront and address personal and societal problems. 

But, let’s face it, there’s always something to whine about. If there’s no constructive effort to discuss a potential solution, I give people room to vent but then will likely ask, “Tell me something good.” (I adapted this line years ago from the movie Apollo 13. After an explosion rocked the capsule, alerts and alarms spewed at Mission Control and in space. Trying to get hold of an increasingly panicked situation, flight director Gene Kranz said, “What do we’ve got [sic] on the spacecraft that's good?”) 

It’s often a heavy lift to pick up and place yourself onto a different track. Complaining is easy, generally satisfying, and attracts a crowd. Once re-railed, though, new opportunities can open. Happiness for another’s good news might overwhelm your schadenfreude. Smiles can replace frowns. Hope may supersede regret. 

What passes for optimism, though, is largely in eye of the pessimist. It might take a little or it might take a lot but it shouldn’t always have to take years and cost billions of dollars. 

"Reasons for Optimism in 2023" (The New York Times) recognizes that we’re in “a world facing many challenges” but proclaims “there are reasons to be hopeful about next year and beyond.” Some of the reasons mentioned in the article are not exactly cheap or around the corner, however. Among the highlights listed include moving “a little closer” to nuclear fusion, advances in AI that “probably won’t take your job,” and “getting closer to cancer vaccines.”

That mislabeled article is not a prediction for breakthroughs in the next 12 months. It’s much better viewed through the lens of hopeful incrementalism. We limit our happiness and our satisfaction if the only measure of success is a home run or a touchdown.

We can enhance our lives exponentially if we remind ourselves that the little stuff matters – a lot. We need to invest in the essential steps along the way to a larger goal and celebrate when each are accomplished. Politicians, business leaders, and our friends and loved ones should consider expanding their definition of what is good cause for optimism. Searching for optimism in 2023 and beyond could get a whole lot easier.

Bits and Blocks – AI of a Different Sort

The AI here is Adopting Incrementalism. We continue to talk about “moonshot” projects and “complete and total” geopolitical victories. Don’t get me wrong. We need big ideas and bold moves. Some situations require a black-or-white, all-or-nothing outcome. But most advances come in smaller bits and blocks, each building on the last.

Freakonomics Radio rebroadcasted In Praise of Incrementalism the other week. It was first out in 2016 and worth a listen. Ed Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard, had a couple of memorable lines:

“…once we start thinking that there’s a silver bullet, … we lose the fact that we need to be working day by day, over decades, to affect change.”

“The more that you just think that the right answer… will magically fix anything, the less that you actually pay attention to what really matters, which is the nit and grit of everyday decision-making, of everyday governance.”

This prompted me to review a few thoughts of my own on this subject going back to 2011. It started with a general revulsion of mutual exclusivity. We don’t need a divide between big ideas and incremental steps; we need vision and execution, large goals and little objectives, and short-range and long-term views.

Public relations and advertising agencies never receive RFPs for little ideas. Boards of Directors don’t select CEOs for their promises of small improvements. Politicians don’t get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, to swing for a home run, to throw the Hail Mary for a touchdown. But that’s not the way to solve most large and complex problems.

It’s worth remembering our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many in the Continental Congress wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain. There would be no United States of America unless they could agree. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait and fight nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

This applies beyond our politics and social ills. In the world of medicine, for example, Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond. If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer.”

This holds for the humanities, too. Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Artists have a vested interest in our believing in the flash of revelation, the so-called inspiration... shining down from heavens as a ray of grace. In reality, the imagination of the good artist or thinker produces continuously good, mediocre or bad things, but his judgment, trained and sharpened to a fine point, rejects, selects, connects... All great artists and thinkers are great workers, indefatigable not only in inventing, but also in rejecting, sifting, transforming, ordering."

Some may feel incrementalism is akin to settling – a poor compromise.  Well, we’ve all heard Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” And legend can teach us, too. When order was collapsing in Camelot, King Arthur (according to T.H. White) said, “Merlyn approved of the Round Table. Evidently, it was a good thing at the time. It must have been a step. Now we must think of making the next one.”

Small strides can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We should embrace and celebrate the completion of each step along the way.


Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Camelot Wisdom: 10 Leadership Lessons from King Arthur’s Court

I am sharing 10 bits of “Camelot Wisdom” to commemorate the publication anniversary of Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. Not all of the actions and words from Camelot were examples we should follow, of course; there were many instances of what not to say or do. But this collection of 10 quotes from the legends (of the 150 in the book) holds strong relevance for us today. As Winston Churchill said, “The further backward you look, the further forward you can see.”

“He favours the young knights, and tries to help them win the spurs.”¹ Help others realize their potential. Coaching, teaching and mentoring must not be an optional activity for leaders.

“Learn why the world wags and what wags it.”² Having empathy - understanding and feeling what others feel - delivers competitive advantage. People want to advocate, work or vote for those who take an interest in them, and feel their pains and successes.

“But when men be hot in the deeds of arms oft they will hurt their friends as well as their foes.”³ Without maintaining calm and perspective in times of crisis, a lack of clear, considered thinking leads to poor decision-making and unintended consequences.

“I didn’t want to be conscious of it. I hoped that if only I was not quite conscious of everything, it would come straight in the end.”⁴ We must confront the hard, awkward issues. Denying reality may sometimes be required to maintain sanity but move past the anticipation and anxiety to address problems and opportunities.

“The destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees.”⁵ It can’t always be all-or-nothing; we should celebrate incremental advances. Communicate and engage with others to find common ground and compromise.

“I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them.”⁶ There is importance in declaring your Mission, Vision, and Values; define and articulate objectives, direction, and principles. We can do well AND do good.

“Merlin made the Round Table in tokening of the world…”⁷ Round was more than a shape; the Table became a brand. It was a symbol of excellence. It enhanced communication and collaboration, and hosted a diversity of old and new – those with institutional knowledge and fresh ideas. Value was placed on the "roundedness" of people and teams.

“…many speak behind a man more than they will say to his face.”⁸ Behavior matters. Gossip leads to rumors, which lead to a breakdown in trust and organizational culture. Ensure the flow of good, timely information. Set an example and have the character and ethics to correct others.

“…you couldn’t get unless you gave. And you had to give without wanting to get.”⁹ One must not think of helping, contributing or doing good as a zero-sum game. We need a mindset, a culture of helping others to succeed – it strengthens everyone.

“Only fools want to be great.”¹⁰ Greatness is not an objective; it’s an outcome of planning, doing, giving and achieving. Leaders know the audiences/stakeholders they serve are the judges. They further those agendas above their own, and must have the vision to unify purpose and people.

There’s much more in the book, of course, but it’s clear that the trials and tribulations of Arthur and his court have much to teach the people, corporations, institutions and governments of today.

This article also appears in Medium. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

1.     T.H. White, The Once and Future King, (1939-1958); Ace Edition (1987), p. 554.

2.     Ibid., p. 183.

3.     Ibid., p. 416

4.     Ibid., 579.

5.     Ibid., p. 231.

6.     Ibid., p. 246.

7.     T. Malory, Le Morte D’Arthur, (1469); Modern Library Edition (1999), p. 691.

8.     White, The Once and Future King, p. 347

9.     Ibid., p. 464.

10. Ibid., p. 180.

Who Can Win the Battle for Truth?

This article also appears in Medium.

We’re fighting over the truth in the news media, at home, at work, and in the halls of Congress. And the battle carries over to our institutions of higher education with sides taken over free speech and academic freedom.

President John F. Kennedy said, “The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth.” So, it seems appropriate that Cornell University recently held a symposium entitled, “Universities and the Search for Truth.”¹

Why does this all seem more urgent today? Humans have always been truth-challenged. Ancient conquerors frequently rewrote history. The Bible is filled with stories of deception. Some countries, institutions and industries exist on the clever use of propaganda.

The truth is the amount of what we call information is expanding wildly, and spread in more ways and with greater consequences than ever before. The rise of the internet and consumer-generated content, pressures on professional journalism, and our reliance on social media channels and their complex algorithms all influence what we see, hear, believe and share.

Add these modern issues to Friedrich Nietzsche’s declaration that “There are no facts, only interpretations” and we have a gray, goopy and potentially grave mess. Echoing the reality of truth’s plasticity, Professor David Shalloway at the symposium said, “Data can be true or false, but knowledge is usually only an approximation.” And Professor Holly Prigerson voiced a similar view: “Truth is not an absolute thing. It’s not binary, and it’s on a continuum.”

Our judicial system recognizes our inclination to manipulate the facts into a self-satisfying truth when we’re asked to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” As much as the words matter, though, Professor Sarah Murray said, “Language itself doesn’t ensure the truth or reliability of information. It’s how we use language and communication and who’s using the language that are judgments about that.” Most people understand this – the messenger can increase or decrease the credibility of the message.

While the literature carries many comparisons between strategic communication and war – offense and defense, knowing your opponent, hearts and minds, etc. – Professor Mor Naaman acknowledged his talk was particularly “dark” and “grim.” “Modern media technology is killing truth and knowledge,” he said. “Instead, our technology emphasizes only information and emotion.” He added that social media is a “well tuned and optimized machine that plays exactly” to our biologically, psychologically and evolutionarily wired sense of emotion, not truth or knowledge.

You can see how fear and anger are being used as platforms for persuasion but we can use this insight on emotion toward a more favorable purpose. The most effective, enduring way to communicate is to link fact and emotion through the use of examples, imagery and storytelling. And the language needs to be relevant; context is required. A famous wrongful death case involving drug side effects was lost well before the conclusion of all the testimony. “We didn’t know what the heck they were talking about,” a juror told The Wall Street Journal.²

Yet, a problem remains in how we receive information. We hear about algorithms making viewing choices for us – the creation of echo chambers. The algorithms are sometimes called filters but they are not. They curate but also isolate. They homogenize, not cross-fertilize.

The symposium panel offered some fixes: Educate students on the ethical, philosophical and social issues of technology; study how technology can create misinformation and biases; create new curricula, and focus new research on these issues. While important, they are long-term solutions and it’s unclear how the findings would be applied widely.

We need equal attention on smaller, shorter-term initiatives. So, let’s stipulate that the truth is subjective and focus instead on the starter material – the objective facts – since these are frequently denied or called into doubt. In addition to the earlier call for using relevant language in describing the facts and connecting these to resonant emotions, we should consider the following:

Push to end false equivalency and the conflation of opinion with fact. If 97 percent of climate scientists agree on human causes for climate change, we should not see one-on-one debates. News organizations and social media news feeds should present the available, accurate data but must differentiate between fact and opinion.

Overwhelm the bad with the good. More experts need to speak out and share the facts to help push inaccurate information down the internet search list. The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University is one of a growing number of programs tackling how to communicate complex information in more understandable, relevant ways.

Get there first. False or misleading statements are terribly difficult to retract and, harder still, to erase from one’s memory. In a study of nearly 900 participants, researchers showed “the repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.”³ The bottom line is that people may continue to rely on misinformation even when a subsequent retraction is made and remembered.

Use technology to advance real time fact checking. We can’t rely on a reporter’s memory or ability to interrupt a guest to check the facts. The idea for a “Truth Meter” was raised at the symposium and it was reported last week that two Penn State professors received a grant from the National Science Foundation to develop technology to identify and exclude “fake news” on digital platforms.⁴ If IBM's Watson computer can win at Jeopardy!, there's no reason that (nearly) real time fact checking couldn't be a reality. We should explore the potential for machines to sift through transcripts, proceedings and testimony; almanacs and atlases; laws, regulations and policy statements; credible survey data, and peer-reviewed research reports.

These efforts will be successful only if our institutions – and society at large – do more to promote and enforce honesty, and venerate intellectual exploration. I keep reading about our “hyper-connected world.” But in these connections we need hyper-vigilance for the facts. Perhaps then we’ll have an easier time searching for truth.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

1.     Cornell University. “Academic Symposium: Universities and the Search for Truth.” August 24, 2017. https://www.cornell.edu/video/academic-symposium-universities-search-for-truth.

2.     Tesoriero, H.W., et al., “Merck Loss Jolts Drug Giant, Industry,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2005.

3.     Lewandowsky, S., et al., “Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation” (2005), Psychological Science, 16(3):190-195.

4.     Associated Press. “Penn State Professors Get Grant for ‘Fake News’ Detector.” August 31, 2017. https://apnews.com/e1b353e9e62f4e4096e419c13b061750/Professors-get-$300,000-grant-for-digital-fake-news-detector.

Big Ideas versus Incremental Steps is a False Choice

A key takeaway message being reported from yesterday’s Democratic Town Hall in Iowa is the divide between big ideas and incremental steps. In general, I don’t like mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed this before in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold moves. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views.

I know it’s hard for politicians to get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, or to swing for a homerun. But it’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems.

This applies beyond our politics and social ills. In the world of medicine, for example, Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." And, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer.”

As we approach another Federal election, it’s worthwhile remembering that our Founding Fathers were believers in the proverb “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many in the Continental Congress wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain.There would be no United States of America unless they could agree. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Small strides can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We should embrace and celebrate the completion of each step along the way.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Our "Big Idea" Obsession

Why We Should Embrace Incrementalism 

Public relations and advertising agencies never receive RFPs for little ideas. Boards of Directors don’t select CEOs for their promises of small improvements. Politicians don’t get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, to swing for a homerun, to throw the Hail Mary for a touchdown.

That’s why President Obama was criticized last month for talking about hitting “singles” and “doubles” in his foreign policy efforts. But he did say, “Every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.” And then admitted, “That may not always be sexy. “That may not always attract a lot of attention..."

He was right and his critics were not happy. Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times opinion piece entitled, “Is Barry Whiffing,” told the President to “stop whining.” Ms. Dowd wrote, “What happened to crushing it and swinging for the fences? Where have you gone, Babe Ruth?” And then, “It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.” 

My readers, clients and students know I hate this type of mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed it before in this blog and in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold gestures. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views. If we can’t always strike that “grand bargain” what are the alternatives?

It’s the same line of reasoning used to block investment in solar or wind energy because it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Or the strengthening of background checks on gun purchases because the effect on violence can’t be fully quantified in advance. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

But we need to start some place, some time. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems. We’ve all heard Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Well, incrementalism is hard to accept but, in so many cases, equally hard to forswear.

I’ll remind the politicos that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

As I wrote in another piece, “Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.”

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

P.S. After posting my blog, I came across an article on the Celgene web site, Paving the Way for Cancer Breakthroughs: Small Steps Make a Big Impact on the Lives of Cancer Patients and Our Understanding of the Disease. They warn against "holding out for those large steps" and ignoring the reality of cancer's complexity. Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center commented, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." The article concludes, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer. In the end, these advances can help us transform cancer into a chronic, manageable disease."

The Incremental Excuse

Aurora and the Rejection of Small Steps

In the aftermath of the tragedy at the Aurora, CO movie theater, the pundits, politicians and lobbyists were at it again with all of the typical arguments about gun control in full force. Both sides of the issue dusted off the same statements they’ve used following the shooting of Gaby Giffords, and the massacres at Fort Hood, Binghamton, Virginia Tech, Columbine and on and on. We weep, we mourn, we do it again.

At the core is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (ratified in 1791): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One the one side:

·     The Second Amendment has been ridiculously over-interpreted. (The Fox show Family Guy took a satirical jab at the subject.)

·     We need to limit the number and type of guns available for sale to the public, especially those designed for combat.

·     We must ensure that those who own them do so legally after appropriate background checks and registration.

·     Ammunition that is designed to inflict maximal damage and penetrate body armor should be banned, as should high capacity magazines.

On the other side:

·     Our freedom is threatened and the country is undermined if the individual right to bear arms is in any way curtailed.

·     The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm whether or not it’s used in connection with service in a militia.

·     If we lived in a more moral society, we would not see people misusing guns.

·     Gun laws won’t stop the insane from finding ways to kill people.

Personally, I have a difficult time with the last four points but the last is particularly irksome – the rationale that inaction is the best option. The line is that stricter gun laws won’t cut down on violence. It might cut down on gun violence but the violent will find other ways to fulfill their intent.

It’s the same line of reasoning used to say that we shouldn’t invest in solar or wind energy because it would only be drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Opponents to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) want it replaced or repealed; there’s nothing to negotiate. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

Enough! We have to start someplace. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s not happening. “Whatever axiom you want to use – half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good” (originally, Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien) – incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.” That’s what I wrote in my book, Camelot, Inc., and it seems appropriate to repeat it here.

We should remember that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted that it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence was a compromise. It was a step. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Of course we must cherish our individual rights but we are one nation. Those who love the Constitution should think deeply about its first line: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please note the words “We” and “general welfare.” And notice also “union,” “Justice” and “domestic Tranquility.” The Founding Fathers would be in tears if they could see how we’ve misused and abused their words, and became one of the most violent societies on earth.

Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon.

Congress and state legislatures across the country should take note. Indeed, we need to elect leaders with the courage and conviction to move the country forward. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.