The problem with such "incrementalism" is that the compromises are always to the left of where we stand today. Those polices induce more socialist dysfunction, thus breeding more socialism.
Look at California. Pete Wilson was EXACTLY the type of governor your hypothesis advocates. We went from a conservative in Deukmejian to Wilson and what followed was tax increases, more outrageous regulation that impoverished the small business and small landowner Republican base. Wilson reconfigured the GOP withdrawing support for any conservative running for statewide office. Wilson pandered to the left in the name of "compromise" thus empowering every leftist cause imaginable. Now, the state teeters on the brink of insolvency, its schools are at rock bottom, its roads and infrastructure are crumbling despite billions in bonds that got flushed down an enviro-toilet, and the GOP is going to get the blame. Eight years later the state has NO chance of returning to its former glory.
No thanks.
What you say makes sense in theory. In the real world, though, we have ideological opponents. They will not allow us to push forward our agenda in large chunks, even though many of us demand that.
In other words, either progress on these issues is incremental, or it’s impossible. I’ll take the baby steps, thank you. I posit that the reason we’re losing in places like CA is because the liberals are better at the baby steps than we are.