Skip to main content

Gradualism in Politics: The Consequences of Ignoring the Constitutional Amendment Process

By Matthew Hayward

Gradualism, also known as incrementalism, is an approach in politics where policies or changes are implemented gradually, leading to significant transformations over time. Although this approach has merits in some contexts, it can pose a danger to a Republic when it undermines the constitutional amendment process. Drawing on the wisdom of George Washington and considering specific examples, this blog will emphasize the importance of adhering to the Constitution and its amendment process while examining the consequences of gradualism in politics.

Gradualism and the Constitution

The Constitution serves as the foundational document of the United States, providing a blueprint for governance and safeguarding citizens' rights. Gradualism, however, can threaten the Constitution's relevance, as it allows politicians to bypass its provisions to achieve their objectives. Through gradual policy changes, politicians can circumvent the constitutional amendment process and erode individual liberties, contravening the principles upon which the United States was founded.

George Washington wisely said, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this may be the instrument of good in one instance, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The Dangers of Gradualism

A significant danger of gradualism in politics is the expansion of government power, often achieved through incremental steps, which can encroach on citizens' rights and diminish their freedom. Gradualism enables politicians to make small changes that, when considered individually, may seem harmless. However, the cumulative effect of these changes may ultimately infringe on constitutional rights.

A specific example of this can be seen in the expansion of war powers. Over time, the executive branch has gradually assumed more authority over military actions, often without congressional approval. This shift in power undermines the Constitution's original intent to balance war-making authority between the executive and legislative branches, weakening the checks and balances system.

Another example is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. The 18th Amendment, which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, demonstrated the constitutional amendment process at work. Although the amendment had unintended consequences, such as organized crime, corruption, and public health issues, it exemplified the correct legal path for addressing issues on a constitutional level.

Ignoring the Constitutional Amendment Process

By sidestepping the constitutional amendment process, gradualism undermines the democratic principles that the United States was built upon. It allows politicians to make changes without the requisite consensus, which can erode the rights and liberties the Constitution was designed to protect. Gradualism also risks creating an environment where political expediency and personal agendas take precedence over preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Conclusion

Gradualism or incrementalism may seem like a pragmatic approach to politics, but it can have severe consequences when it ignores the constitutional amendment process. The wisdom of George Washington serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the Constitution and its amendment process. By resisting the temptation to bypass the amendment process through incremental changes, politicians can engage in the difficult but necessary work of building consensus and ensuring that any alterations to the Constitution reflect the people's will. Adhering to the constitutional amendment process is crucial in maintaining the democratic principles upon which the United States was founded.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...