I was writing my post on the Band of Bloggers Facebook page, listing my recent articles and providing a brief summary of each, when it struck me how the process through which our current cultural tendencies lead to rapid collapse of social norms ("Pushing the Envelope") is almost identical to the way that many "slippery slope" legal processes work, starting with small steps, slowly undermining the entire edifice, taking years or decades to become established, after which there is a sudden flurry of activity, rapid change, and almost total victory for those seeking change.

First, let me say that by "slippery slope", I mean two different things, related but not identical. The first is the traditional meaning, though I think I may allow for a definition slightly broader than most. These are legal principles which are accepted, but accepted only with the understanding that they will have a limited scope, apply only to a small set of circumstances, or are otherwise limited. In other words, rulings which would logically entail far reaching changes, but which are allowed only because those changes are explicitly excluded. Some such cases would be the Griswold ruling which preceded Roe ("It Doesn't Matter What the Court Says"), or the Boumedine ruling, which I have argued will reach much farther than even critics allow. ("Be Careful What You Wish For", "Somehow The Media Missed This", "More Relevant Than I Thought")

The reason such rulings are called "slippery slopes" is that, despite the explicit exclusions, the rulings are almost never limited by the restrictions placed upon them. Griswold, for example, limited protection to married couples, a restriction which quickly disappeared. And the reason is obvious. If you accept a principle, it is hard to then argue that, while the principle is true, you should do the opposite because the court said so in a case. Basically, once we accept a principle, we accept all the logical implications of that principle. For example, despite the claims of many, once we accepted the rights of man as the foundation of our nation, slavery was doomed. We may have tried to ignore it for political reasons, but there was simply no logical way to retain slavery with the principles on which our nation was founded. The Civil War made it a moot point, but even had that war never happened, slavery would have eventually disappeared.

And that is why I use "slippery slope" to describe a second set of principles, one I discussed in "Inescapable Logic" (as well as "Recipe For Disaster", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "The Cycle of Compassion"). This principle is almost the same, but is divorced from explicit legal rulings. Instead, I argue that once a principle is accepted in politics, the party accepting it is bound to follow through to the logical conclusion whether they accept it or not. For example, while moderate Republicans claim to be for smaller government, once they accept principles agreeing with economic intervention or bigger, more powerful government, they are forced to accept those principles. ("Defending Freedom?", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "The Single Greatest Weakness",  "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!", "You Lose When You Think You Win" , "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves") And, again, the reason is obvious. If the Republicans accept one argument for big government, they cannot then argue against another application of the same principle. So either they embrace big government, or they appear hypocritical, in either case ceding victory to the opposition.

I mention all of these because they are essential to understanding the way our society changes, and why such changes tend to move in an exponential manner, starting with very small, slow movements,taking a very long time to shift even a tiny amount, gradually developing some momentum, seeing changes coming at a more regular pace, and, finally, ending with rapid, dramatic changes, until the original situation is so far removed from present circumstances it seems almost alien.

Allow me to give one example, from a relatively apolitical topic. I recall not so very long ago, smoking was allowed in most workplaces, and not just in "smoking areas", but in many cases in any area not designated "No Smoking". I recall in 1986 and 1987 I could smoke in the hallways of my community college, and I smoked at my desk while conducting phone surveys in the year following. But, about the same time, smoking came under attack by those who were interested in putting an end to it. Oh, there had been previous assaults, the aforementioned slow, quiet period had started with the cigarette labeling requirements and the very quiet efforts to paint smoking as something not just unhealthy but almost immoral. ("Twisted Priorities", "Practicality Versus Dogma", "Socialism on the Installment Plan") However, it was not until the late 80's and early 90's that we saw the attacks begin to accelerate. First, smoking was banned on flights, then smokers were pushed into smoking rooms at their places of work. Then shopping malls banned smoking. Smoking ages rose. So did taxes. Smoking was forced outside in everyplace bu bars and restaurants. Some towns even tried to ban smoking outdoors.

All of which brings us to the present where one fells almost evil for lighting a cigarette, and holding a lit cigarette is certain to gather dozens of angry sneers from those one meets on the streets. What started as a supposedly "limited", "common sense" set of restrictions to ensure nonsmokers had a few places away from smoke ended up a moral crusade against smokers which has reached the point where some call for declaring smoking around children a form of abuse, and at least one town has tried to ban smoking in apartment buildings, duplexes, townhouse and other conjoined dwellings.

Then again, smoking is a touchy subject for some, and I know even a few conservative sympathize with those who ban it entirely*, so perhaps another topic would help illustrate this principle.

In my last post I talked about the use of obscenities in society, and, as a specific example, in popular entertainment. There too we can see this pattern. For decades, television saw almost no use of the banned words. Even euphemisms for them were avoided, as were many topics such as pregnancy, sexual intercourse, defecation and a few others. In the seventies we saw a tiny shift, with the use of euphemisms to describe those forbidden topics. Language was still kept clean, but some topics started to appear which had once been off limits. Suddenly, in the 80's, we saw the first cracks in the wall, as the less offensive obscenities ("damn", "hell" and later "b**ch") began to appear. They were still rare, used only for emphasis, and not officially approved. But, after a few years, the floodgates opened, and more and more words became acceptable. And so we reached today, where there is a real debate whether using f**k as an adjective might be acceptable to the FCC**, and where those less offensive obscenities are used regularly enough that few recall they even are obscenities.

The reason for this pattern is found in the way these things come about. First, there is the intellectual assault. Thinkers begin to take the current paradigm to task. Criticizing traditional values as the prejudices of blue noses and busy bodies, arguing for freedom of expression, they gradually make some tiny headway in the popular culture. At first, they keep their ambitions modest. Be it banning smoking on planes as "nonsmokers have nowhere to go" or allowing "Match Game" contestants to make veiled references to sex, they gain some very small concessions. However, the concessions also establish that their basic principles are correct, and, once that is done, they have won.

Oh, it takes time. Those first concessions must be around for long enough that they seem natural, that people no longer find them novel. But, once that point has been reached, those first examples are brought out to justify more radical changes. Since the original change worked, goes the argument, why should we not allow a bit more freedom? Clearly, they continue, the old rules were not needed, as our changes did not cause the world to end, so why keep restricting individual freedom for no good reason? And, with that argument, the process begins to accelerate. First the low hanging fruit gets plucked, the most modest changes, the least objectionable examples. But, once society has accepted those change, they too are used as arguments for more change. And thus the process accelerates. And soon, having seen so many changes in such a short time, the public becomes unable to resist any more changes. Seeing the old rules completely destroyed, they lack the will to fight any longer, and in short order, all remnants of the old traditions are gone.

Of course, none of this is inevitable. At every step it is possible for us to reverse the process. Even when we have reached the end of the line, when all standards have vanished and total license rules the day, we can still go back to what we once knew. However, as I pointed out, the process becomes more difficult as time passes. The people become apathetic, the new situation becomes familiar, the arguments for returning to the past situation sound "stodgy" and "archaic". It is possible, but it becomes less likely as more and more rules fall.

Which is why I continue to argue that we must not grant such concessions. We must not try to adopt a middle of the road position, must not embrace some amount of authoritarianism while saying we embrace freedom. If we truly want to preserve individual freedom, restore the value we once found in our culture and its traditions, then we must be careful to never concede the arguments of the other side. Only by being vigilant, and continually maintaining our principles can we keep from having to fight the long and difficult battle to win back what we lost to supposed "reformers".


----------------------------------------------------------------------

* For the record I do smoke, though I am trying to cut down or quit as it exacerbates my health problem and can cause attacks. Still, even were I to stop smoking, I would not agree with the attack on smoking. I do not use drugs (except by prescription) and I still think the war on drugs is nonsensical. Similarly, I drink very rarely, if at all, and yet I do not agree with health based assaults on drinking. But I also know many believe in the faulty argument that "health" overcomes any argument to the contrary, and so I won't bother arguing this point here. Instead, I refer readers to "Absolute Values",  "The Right Way", "It Doesn't Matter to ME..." and "Drug Legalization".

** Do not take this to mean I endorse the FCC or the idea of government censorship. (See "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas", "My Censorship Is Your Discretion", "Culture and Government", "The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation") I favor using social pressures to enforce good behavior and social norms. However, in this case, I am simply using the process to illustrate how such things take place, and since the force banning behavior was the FCC, I am forced to use that example. But it does not imply any sort of approval of their actions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

As I mentioned my health in the footnotes above, and as a few of my regular readers know about my many health woes ("Standing By My Principles", "It Doesn't Matter to ME..."), I feel I ought to share my news with them. As of two weeks ago, I have an official diagnosis. (Which is a bit sad, as my first major problem appeared in June of 2006, and lesser problems appeared earlier in January of that year.) About a year ago my neurologist confirmed I have small fiber neuropathy in my hands, arms, feet and legs, but not the cause of it. Well, I finally know. Thanks to a lot of blood tests and other analysis, I know I have porphyria. According to the hematologist, it looks like acute intermittent porphyria (see here and here), but it appears to be environmentally induced, not genetic.  (Which is great news for my son, and by extension for me.)  Unfortunately, there is no real treatment. I need to avoid proteins, make sure I get enough glucose, try to avoid fasting, and avoid caffeine, alcohol and smoking. I have been avoiding two of those last three for a while anyway, and I have always had a sweet tooth, but I am guilty of forgetting meals with alarming frequency (my weight can shift 20 or 30 pounds in either direction for no specific reason, even before I became ill), and smoking is the one vice I seem unable to shake. Still, as far as diseases go, it is much better than when a previous neurologist thought I had ALS, so I am relatively happy.