If you have spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out this government bailout plan in recent weeks, you may have heard some conservatives who opposed it warn that it could be the beginning of a "slippery slope" to socialism. Really? Even many, if not most, of those who favor the bailout plan do so reluctantly or are rightly concerned about its application and effectiveness. I think to talk about a slippery slope to socialism is to ignore or minimize this general wariness.
In any case, there are two ways to avoid sliding down the slippery slope. One obviously is to wear a good pair of rock climbing shoes. Another is to just rationally analyze each case independently, as they appear. The people who support this bailout are not necessarily making any statement about the superiority of socialism over private control, they are recognizing this one particular crisis, in large part caused by unchecked private enterprise, which they believe is so great as to require government intervention. The slippery slope to socialism comes up often with regard to calls for national health care too, even though roads, law enforcement, firefighters, parks, libraries, and the military are already government-run. The way some people panic about the consequences of national health care, you'd think we would all be slaving away in a gulag within a couple years of its enactment.
In any case, there are two ways to avoid sliding down the slippery slope. One obviously is to wear a good pair of rock climbing shoes. Another is to just rationally analyze each case independently, as they appear. The people who support this bailout are not necessarily making any statement about the superiority of socialism over private control, they are recognizing this one particular crisis, in large part caused by unchecked private enterprise, which they believe is so great as to require government intervention. The slippery slope to socialism comes up often with regard to calls for national health care too, even though roads, law enforcement, firefighters, parks, libraries, and the military are already government-run. The way some people panic about the consequences of national health care, you'd think we would all be slaving away in a gulag within a couple years of its enactment.
Another group of people who love the slippery slope argument are opponents of gay marriage. "Well, if you let two gay people get married, what's next? Polygamous m
arriage? State-sponsored incest? A man and a horse getting hitched? A man and a toaster?" But all of this ignores that proponents of gay marriage do have a criterion supporting their view that can be applied individually to any case. For most, that criterion would probably be something like "two consenting adults." Slippery slope is often a lazy and absurd form of argument. Let's be reasonable, nobody is lobbying for interspecies marriage, and nobody ever will.When you really think about it, the slippery slope argument can be employed for any law that is enacted, taking it to its extreme, irrational end, and ignoring nuances and common moral standards that expose how ridiculous these arguments are. Outlaw slavery? Whoa! Next thing you know, the government will take away all of our property and we won't own ANYTHING. No more death penalty? Great, now every convicted murderer is going to walk free. Courts are prohibited from displaying the ten commandments? If you're a Christian, better get out of this country before you're thrown in jail for your beliefs.
Think of each issue as a mountain with two opposing slippery slopes. Going back to national health care, some argue that it could be the beginning of a dangerous descent into socialism. But is this argument any more valid than one that says privatizing health care could start a dangerous trend towards completely unregulated capitalism? Is privatizing a business going down the slippery slope towards anarchy? It works both ways.
Posts
