“Nothing would fundamentally change,” then candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden promised a room of wealthy donors during his 2020 run for President. Two years into his first term, it seems that the President is keeping his promise to enact only incrementalist, small or gradual, change as opposed to large, structural change. In keeping with his long practice of incrementalism, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on August 16th and gave the pen to Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). Manchin, along with Senator Sinema (D-AZ), successfully sunk what was supposed to be his administration’s crowning achievement, the Build Back Better (BBB) Bill. 

The original BBB plan represented a $3.5 trillion spending bill over 10 years including “universal pre-k, subsidized child care, paid family and medical leave, free community college and expanded tax credits” for working families. This bill garnered widespread support among the American people. Even in conservative West Virginia, 68% of likely voters either strongly supported (49%) or somewhat supported (19%) the BBB package. Despite this, Democrats failed to leverage this popularity and Senator Manchin refused to support the measure. After months of negotiation, Congressional and White House progressives compromised with mainstream Democrats on a smaller $1.75 trillion bill over 10 years. Senator Manchin also shot this bill down due to concerns regarding inflation. Yet he failed to voice similar concerns when, only four days earlier, he voted for $768.2 billion in military spending for the 2022 fiscal year. For months, Democrats from across the political spectrum compromised for Senators Manchin and Sinema to no avail. Ensorceled by the seemingly attainable incrementalism of “moderates,” the Democratic party wasted valuable time and political capital in the pursuit of pleasing obstinate members instead of using political pressure to force coalescence. Instead of accommodating Manchin and Sinema, President Biden should have stated clearly and unequivocally that these two senators were the roadblocks to progress. 

This leads us to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), hailed by President Biden as “the biggest step forward on climate, ever,” with reports that it would lead to a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. Often missed in this analysis is that “the IRA accelerates emissions reductions to 40% below 2005 levels in 2030, compared to 30% without it” meaning that the IRA represents only 10% in additional reductions in emissions. The IRA represents only marginal progress in combating climate change, despite this, a linty of news organization propagated this falsehood, mischaracterizing the act as a historic “breakthrough” in the fight for humanity’s future . The IRA offers only a fraction of what BBB would have offered, particularly with regard to social programs which have a more immediate effect than climate provisions on American lives and Democratic political fortunes. While the IRA certainly represents progress, it also represents disappointment to those across the country who looked to Washington for support, only to find incrementalism.

The problem is not just that Democrats failed in fighting for a significant part of their agenda — rather it is that most people do not believe they fought at all. Leaders normally have two options when dealing with obstinate individuals: the carrot, or the stick. Progressives in Congress compromised, President Biden compromised — and Senators Manchin and Sinema still wouldn’t take the “carrot.” 

It is true that the President has no legislative powers without the veto, but the “stick” here is not procedural, it is political. President Biden celebrates that, in his view, “With this law [the IRA], the American people won, and special interests lost.” If President Biden does believe that special interests will oppose his agenda, then there is only one place to get power from, the people. Part of Biden’s pitch to voters was a sense of a competent and moral leader, so President Biden should actually lead. Former state senator and co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign Nina Turner said it best, “He [Biden] needs to hold a press conference… saying you're gonna be with me… or I’m gassing up the jet… and I will be in Arizona and West Virginia directly, and let the American people know who's standing in the way of my entire agenda.” Both Senators Manchin and Sinema had constituencies that supported the BBB bill. By clearly stating who was standing in the way of this popular legislation, President Biden had the power to force the two senators opposed to either acquiesce or sabotage their own chances at re-election and he chose not to do so. 

The political barriers which prevented the passage of BBB could have been overcome, but more private information calls into question the integrity of the Senators ideological objects. Senator Sinema previously advocated for prescription drug reform, yet ridiculed that portion of the BBB agenda after taking $750,000 in donations from pharmaceutical companies. Senator Manchin pointed to climate change provisions aimed at phasing out fossil fuels as a key reason for his objection to the BBB package while earning $4.5 million from his coal companies since joining the Senate. So, both Senators Manchin and Sinema have chosen to obfuscate the will of the people in favor of their own selfish benefit. 

If the American people believe that you are fighting for them, they will help you. But if the American people think you’re ready to surrender before you even step into the ring, you are seen as a coward –– and the American people want a fighter. One of the most transformative and successful Presidents in American history, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was elected four consecutive times by substantially large margins because he helped everyday Americans. President Roosevelt fought for working people with big, sweeping, structural change, and in return, they fought for him. Many who oppose such “sweeping” initiatives, advocate for a more gradual approach to change, a view Senators Manchin and Sinema tend to agree with. Yet promises of slow progress in the pursuit of an eventually adequate solution are not new. These incrementalist approaches are failing now, just as they have in the past, and just as they will in the future. 

The damaging effect that incrementalism has on American society can perhaps be best displayed by the development of the modern U.S. healthcare system. In 1945, when Bernie Sanders was just four years old, President Harry Truman proposed a National Health Insurance plan that would pay for healthcare for all Americans via a payroll tax. As proposed, this healthcare plan was more expansive than Medicare and would have provided all Americans with “doctors visits, hospital visits, laboratory services, dental care, and nursing services.” After the failure of Truman’s bill largely due to the American Medical Association (AMA) and communist anxieties, President Johnson would end up carrying the torch through to the finish line, albeit in incomplete form. The Medicare and Medicaid bills passed in 1965 provided limited state-sponsored healthcare for those over the age of 65, and many in poverty. While this investment was certainly worthwhile, it is equivalent to putting a bandage on a bullet wound. Medicare now provides limited service to seniors at high prices; the rest of the population pays even higher prices for worse health outcomes when compared with other industrialized nations. In short, Medicare and Medicaid have not advanced the United States towards a universal healthcare system as many advocates had hoped. Instead, the system has become more complex, confusing, and expensive without the cost-saving benefit of preventative care that universal coverage would provide. Medicare is just one example of how incrementalism can halt the momentum for change. Since the passage of Medicare, most improvements have been marginal and few have had the effect of moving the U.S. towards universal coverage except for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), another example of inadequate incrementalist reform.

The progress of climate change legislation will probably mirror the forestallment of the healthcare agenda, as the IRA will provide political cover to opponents of future reforms. Just as Medicare was able to thwart the push for universal coverage, the portrayal of the IRA as a “breakthrough” piece of legislation will convince many that future reform is unnecessary, a fallacy of political and financial convenience for people like Manchin and Sinema. Unfortunately, President Biden was unable to effectively leverage the popularity of his policies to force support from key players. As time went on, momentum stalled, approval ratings fell, and the American people paid the price. President Biden missed his chance to pass BBB and squandered an opportunity for major legislative accomplishment on a measure that will lead to only a slight reduction of emissions. This is not likely to endear Democrats to voters come November. If the IRA provided meaningful help to struggling families, Democrats would have an accomplishment to run on. This would have made victory more likely, thus ensuring a more far reaching climate change bill. Instead, President Biden took the scraps Joe Manchin was willing to spare. The problems the country faced then were enormous in size and scope, thus requiring a response of equal magnitude, and the contemporary reality is no different. America is in crisis: 37.9 million Americans live in poverty, 30 million Americans don’t have health insurance, and life expectancy is in decline. In the coming decades humanity is expected to experience “more wildfires, floods, heatwaves, and water shortages” and the “biggest step forward on climate, ever” is an incrementalist piece of legislation which addresses only 10% of the issue. The solutions to these problems must meet the magnitude of the moment. The American people need solutions, not stopgaps; this means real change, not ineffective, incrementalist policy in pursuit of a false sense of political expediency.