There are two distinct but similar arguments that I think are worth teasing apart:
- The Slippery Slope: Once a well-defined principle is set aside in order to permit a controversial policy, there will be no principled grounds to prevent another policy that is deemed unacceptable.
- The Camel’s Nose: If we allow the group proposing the current policy to have a victory in the current debate, it is inevitable that it will pursue and gain other victories that are currently deemed unacceptable.
I thought of this a couple weeks ago reading Stephen Bainbridge writing about health care reform. His argument seemed to boil down to: If we pass modest health care reform, people might like it, and might want more of it. To which I reply: so what? If the modest reforms prove successful, maybe we do need more of it.
For sure, this can be troublesome when the benefits are immediate and the costs are longer term. Witness the mock surprise from cultural liberals that the world has not collapsed after same sex marriage was approved in some states. As if the argument was that there would be an immediate apocalypse if same sex marriage conceded. These same voices would not see St. Louis’s apparent ability to avoid disaster in spite of massive transit cuts as an argument against transit funding. And it is a lot easier to expand programs than to cut them back.
I think it’s also important to note that this is a camel’s nose rather than a slippery slope argument. What cherished principle is being threatened here. Government involvement in health care? With Medicare and Medicaid and Veterans Affairs, and insuring government workers, the government is already immensely engaged in health care.
To me, the “camel’s nose” argument smacks of tribalism. The proposal may not be objectionable, but it’s being proposed by the people with purple hair, and we can’t let them win. As a pro-lifer exasperated with the difficulty of enacting the most modest of protections for the unborn, I am eager to see this type of thinking go away.
Will those favoring the current health care proposals push for more later? I’m quite sure. I’m also quite sure we can say, “no” if we need to.
