By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM–We see in the health care bills that passed the U.S. House and Senate yet another indication that policy making is, most of the time, incremental.
For me, that is another endorsement of a finding that helped establish me as a political scientist. Long ago I published a number of items showing that current orderings of state government expenditures, per capita, looked very much like the orderings sixty years earlier. Some of my colleagues chided me for proving the obvious. My response then and now is, if you do not recognize the obvious, including the weight of incrementalism, you have no hope of understanding the prime elements of politics.
The health bills reflect the capacity of opponents to limit progress. The president is expressing satisfaction at receiving some, but not nearly all of what he wanted.
That’s incrementalism, or the capacity of opponents to limit change.
The lesson has its implications for that feisty little country where I’ve lived half of my life.
Israel is not about to solve its problems once and for all. Not only do Israelis with power disagree about what to do, but powerful outsiders also add their weight. As a result, no one rules all by him/herself, and it is difficult to change course.
And the same process works on Israel’s opponents. The Arabs are stuck with their beliefs and commitments, just as Israelis are stuck with their suspicions about others, and concerns about the unknowns that might be lurking in dramatic proposals for change.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a paradise where the past did not weigh heavily on the present? But none of us are there, or will get there. So our politicians cope with the present and one another, hopefully do their best not to make things worse, and occasionally succeed in persuading one another to take some steps that might improve things.
In the United States Congress, representatives of the House and Senate still have to persuade one another to reach an agreement that will smooth out the differences between their bills. Don’t expect any great movement toward the original aspirations of the president and other reformers. Hope for an agreement that makes things better for a lot of people, and not too worse for those opposed to any change.
For Israel, hope for something positive out of the continuing negotiations about Gilad Shalit, and an agreement among important countries that will curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations. If only because there are fewer participants in the Shalit process, I am more optimistic about his future than about Iran. I would be disappointed, but not surprised if nothing positive occurred on either issue. That would be another lesson in policy making, where it is always easier to say no than yes.
**
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University