Incrementalism is the slippery slope to slavery. Or worse, collapse.
Think that's hyperbole? Think again — life can get to terrible places one tiny step at a time.
Auctioneer Mike Brandly tells a story on his blog about auctioning an exquisitely detailed, hand-carved china cabinet back in 1997. Brandly asked for an opening bid of $5,000 and the room went silent. “You could hear a pin drop other than my bid-calling,” he said.
So he dropped the opening bid to $2,500 and a bidder in the room yelled out, “$1,000!” Soon, someone countered with “$1,500!” and the auction was on. Brandly says the bidding continued in $500 increments until it reached a final selling price of $7,500.
“There’s a phrase in the auction business — ‘You can’t start where you want to finish,’” he says. “$5,000 can seem like a big number at first, but it seems like a much smaller number when compared to $4,500 — as it’s only $500 more. Is $4,500 a big number? It’s only $500 more than $4,000. It’s called ‘incrementalism.’”
Governments use a similar tactic when introducing policies they know won’t have universal public appeal. They’ll roll out a law that gets roundly criticized and then pull back on some of the most contentious provisions, seemingly acquiescing to public demands, until the law can get passed.
Substacker
gave a great example of how this happened in Germany recently with changes to the country’s Building Energy Act.The technocratic wing of the Greens, under Economics Minister Robert Habeck, proposed to mandate that all new heating systems installed after 2024 in Germany use no less than 65% renewable energy. In its original form, the law amounted to a de facto mandate to install heat pumps, and it would’ve entailed catastrophic renovation costs for the owners of many older buildings. The law proved so controversial that even some of the establishment press broke ranks to criticise it; in the end, Habeck had to sacrifice his powerful state secretary Patrick Graichen, and the legislation passed in modified but still pretty terrible form, laden with a wealth of complex subsidies and exceptions.
Eugyppius goes on to explain that, at a recent town hall event, Habeck said the quiet part out loud when asked about the legislation. He admitted the first draft of the law was a test to see how much the public would accept:
“The debate about the Building Energy Act, that is how we will heat in the future, was honestly a test of how far society is prepared to go in terms of climate protection when it becomes a reality. And I went too far. You could see that the reaction was immediately there, so to speak, and it would have been a reaction that would probably have ended up knocking the entire climate protection programme off its feet.”
For Habeck, it was evident his policies would not be popular. He pushed just as far as he could at one time, but not so far that the societal backlash could potentially derail an even more insidious policy down the road.
This resonates with a cautionary tale Dr. Jordan Peterson once shared on the Joe Rogan podcast. "Things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time," Peterson explained as Rogan wondered how American society had devolved to such an extent during the COVID era. Peterson gave an analogy of incremental encroachment met with intermittent resistance. The erosion can occur almost imperceptibly, leaving people bewildered at the distance they've unwittingly traveled from their initial stance.
“If I encroach on you and I'm sophisticated about it, I'm going to encroach right to the point where you start to protest, and then I'm going to stop. Then I'm going to wait and you're going to calm down. Then I'm going to encroach again right to the point where you protest. Then I'm going to stop, then I'm going to wait. And I'm just going to do that forever. And before you know it you're going to be back three miles from where you started and you'll have done it one step at a time. And then you'll go, 'oh how did I get here?' And the answer is, 'well, I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone and you agreed. And so then I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone again. And you agreed."
Former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker laid it out quite well in describing how the concept of the Euro currency was introduced to the public:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
Juncker's candid admission highlights how government decisions, often intentionally complex and opaque not just to the public eye but also to the lawmakers charged with approving them, evolve incrementally until their cumulative impact becomes irreversible.
Incrementalism is the heat being turned up on the boiling pot. We are the frogs.
Under this gradual approach, a false sense of security can quickly lead to a tipping point after which the move towards the inevitable end cannot be stopped or reversed. By the time people wake up and see what’s going on, their only recourse may be to take to the streets in protest. But given that this eventuality was likely anticipated and prepared for, even discontent in the streets is likely to be futile.
Slow encroachments on our civil liberties — whether through surveillance, censorship, taxation, or restrictive legislation — threaten our democratic principles and our individual freedoms. Each incremental restriction, justified in isolation, contributes to a broader erosion. These changes often go unnoticed until many of our freedoms have been totally compromised. A vigilant society must be acutely aware not just of the single action being suggested but of the cumulative effects of each incremental decision.
We must also be duly suspicious when measures are hastily rolled back. Don’t count the denouement as a win. It’s not. It’s simply a stall, to allow you to catch your breath before the encroachment begins anew. The best recent examples include Diversity Equity and Inclusion efforts, Environmental Social and Governance ranking systems, and working to establish Natural Asset Companies.
Our challenge is not only to recognize the risks but to actively resist the normalization of incrementalism. Speak up and point it out to others, rather than accepting gradual erosions under the guise of progress or safety or convenience.
To safeguard against the slippery slope to collapse, we must remain vigilant, be steadfast in our scrutiny, and challenge incremental encroachments on our liberties. Otherwise we may end up in a terrible place, as Peterson says, and we will have made our way there one tiny step at a time.
Very good post and use of the auctioneer allegory.
I've been trying to explain this strategy to people for several years now, especially where the radical agendas (proxies for regime policies) are concerned.
It's a very old playbook, that's been refined and proven over centuries - and we never see it, each and every time they use it.
As with your auctioneer, they usually will propose, discuss or model the outrageous or extreme. There will be the expected and requisite backlash and then they will go about the methodical business of reintroducing (usually through media, entertainment and backroom legislation) a seemingly watered down version of the initial radical proposal.
Over time, they will finally surpass their original proposal and achieve the larger goal, that was always the true, hidden and unspoken target.
Look at any radical agenda you see today and you can retrace these steps. The lgbtqFU agenda is a prime example, but so is the climate crisis scam. Everyone scoffed at the crazy cow farts AOC pontificated about - but less that 4 years later, there was legislation on the books of states to outlaw "fossil fuel" cars by set date. Like wise, the obiden climate agenda was built on the "green new deal" and surpassed it, in almost every way. Now you may say, "well the EVs and green energy thing is failing" and sure you'd be right. However, the damage has been done (economies, businesses, retirement investments, etc.) and it ushered in hundreds of spin off agendas/initiatives, that quietly gained footholds and funding.
Their action always have synergy - whether it's creating multiple fronts of destabilization/destruction or numerous incubators for new fronts of destabilization/destruction - they always are more than they seem to be at fist glance.
The masses, wallowing in their netflix, doordash, media/entertainment stupors never notice - until the gavel strikes and it's time to pay the piper.
Everything they've done - that's been paid for with your time, money, freedoms, liberties or life - was able to be done, because of incrementalism.
We must learn to be smarter and more observant, in this fight.
There is no better example of this then what governments have done to cigarette smokers. ( I don't give a shit if you agree or not)
It started with can you please move to the smoking section
Umm, I mean please go to the special vented room
umm, no smoking indoors at all, please use the balcony
umm no smoking on the balcony, please stand on the sidewalk
no smoking on the sidewalk, just that designated area 5000 yards away
Anyone that smokes knows this pattern of Incrementalism well. We recognize this pattern in many other things.