Achieving small changes stops people from demanding big changes.

The argument

Incrementalism is a slippery slope, and the danger proponents of this position identify is not that small changes are worthless but that they are demobilising. By accepting limited changes, we halt the momentum of a movement. This leads to us accepting half-measures. Then we have to fight to keep these changes and we stop demanding progress — the energy that had been directed at winning something new is diverted into defending what has already been won. The effect on expectations is the deeper problem. We unconsciously lower our expectations for change, because small changes are heralded as victories that lull people into complacency. A movement that celebrates a partial measure has, in the act of celebrating it, told its own supporters what success is going to look like. We provide legitimacy to incrementalism and the unsubstantial changes, and eventually we begin to accept repackaging the same status quo as change. An example of this is the Paris Climate Agreement. It was praised as a success, with some even going so far to say that it was the solution to climate change. After years of incremental progress, the achievement of reaching an agreement made it seem like a success, so that the fact of agreement came to stand in for the adequacy of what had been agreed. Even the countries and non-governmental organizations that thought that it was an inadequate response legitimized it, because an incremental agreement was seen as better than no agreement, which could have been what happened if they tried to hold out for a better agreement. That last consideration is what makes the trap hard to escape: the alternative to a weak settlement always appears to be nothing at all. Because achieving small changes stops people from demanding big changes, incrementalism does not work.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the 'slippery slope to complacency' is asserted, not demonstrated. History offers many cases where incremental wins built momentum rather than sapping it — the expansion of suffrage, civil-rights advances and the growth of healthcare came step by step, each victory enlarging expectations and coalitions rather than lulling people into acceptance. They add that the Paris Agreement cuts both ways: a flawed universal framework that ratchets commitments upward over time may achieve more than holding out for an all-or-nothing deal that never arrives. Complacency is a risk to manage, not an inevitability, so it does not show that incrementalism fails.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The 'slippery slope to complacency' is asserted, not shown; historically many incremental wins (suffrage, civil rights, healthcare) built momentum and raised expectations rather than lowering them. [Rejecting P2] Small victories can enlarge coalitions and prove change is possible, energising further demands — the opposite of the lulling effect claimed. [Rejecting P3] The Paris Agreement cuts both ways: a framework that ratchets commitments over time may deliver more than holding out for an all-or-nothing deal that never materialises, so it doesn't prove incrementalism fails.