Debating Myself

In his book The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, Richard J. Ellis writes:

“…no political position is strengthened by suppressing or slighting inconvenient facts or covering up weakness. Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess.”

Aside from being a fascinating look at how liberal, or egalitarian, movements are prone to descending into egalitarianism in regards to their own structure, Ellis’ words are important to keep in mind when thinking about the 2008 Democratic Primary.

While a slew of voices on the left are crying out for Hillary to concede to Obama so that the party can unite and to protect Obama’s ‘good name’, these voices are missing the point: after the Democrats pick a nominee the Republican attack machine will go into full swing.

The only way either of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to take on the Republican nominee in the general election is if they both push themselves to be better, refine their message, and “battle-test “themselves.

It is the same reason I am much more critical of political stances, policies, and politicians that I am sympathetic of–just because I support something doesn’t mean I don’t want to challenge its assumptions and facts to make sure they are sound and stable. The only way I will support something is if it stands up to my own challenges.

It doesn’t make you a traitor to your ideology to be critical, it makes you a positive force for improvement.

One of the most common, and overused, arguments out there is that of the slippery slope. Everyone is familiar with the argument that if agent X does A, then not too much later B and C are sure to follow. It is usually implied or intended that all of the actions–A, B and C– are negative things. For some reason this reasoning, when used for positive outcomes, is not called a slippery slope.

Just thinking today about how often this argument is used, and the sheer myriad of topics it is used for, made me want to write a bit about the difficulties in constructing a convincing slippery slope argument and the easiest ways to refute one. It is a good idea to always think critically when evaluating any slippery slope argument–they are usually misused and based on faulty logic.

However, thinking about the barriers to proving that positive outcomes will follow a single positive action in a sequence is a good way for thinking about the way slippery slope arguments have to be constructed.

Essentially the slippery slope argument relies on proving two things. First, the existence of a slope, and second, evidence that the slope is slippery. Without either of these two things the argument is not valid. It is not enough to show the existence of a slope–it must also be shown to be slippery.

To show that there is a slope there needs to be proof of a clear causal connection between event A and consequences B and C. It is not enough to say that if the government creates weaker rules regarding the necessity of warrants in search and seizure situations that the government will also soon limit the freedom of expression as well. The link between the two, that they are both constitutionally protected civil liberties, does not create a “slope” between them. To show a link, or slope, between these two actions a more observable and explainable political process must be found. An example would be showing that the laxer rules regarding warrants would create a call from interest groups within the government (i.e. intelligence services or police departments) to also limit the rules regarding freedom of expression to make the laxer warrant rules more effective.

This, of course, is a dubious link at best–but it is often argued that any reduction in one civil liberty leads to another. Such an argument needs to be evaluated carefully. One could also attempt to make a historical examination–which has questionable validity, but may provide some insight–and look at historical examples of one action leading to another. The argument would be a bit more persuasive if each time the government loosened up restrictions regarding warrants it also subsequently cracked down on freedoms of expression.

The historical example would also be useful to show that there has been a slipperiness to the slope between freedom of expression and search and seizure in the past. However, to truly show slipperiness it is necessary to show that it is plausible that barriers between the two policies being implemented are minimal.

As mentioned above, the slope not only has to exist, but it has to be slippery. Plausible barriers to the implementation of further policies along the slope must be minimal. This means that safeguards preventing further policies from occurring need to be non-existent, or a plausible reason for their failure needs to be demonstrated. In keeping with the above example, if warrant rules are made laxer, it may be argued that there is indeed a slippery slope toward the restriction of freedom of expression because those involved in reducing the need for a warrant also have similar desires to reduce the freedom of expression and have expressed this in some way. If in the warrant legislation wording was written that seemed to suggest a nonchalant attitude toward civil liberties in general, this would give us a clue as to the slipperiness of the slope.

Slippery slope arguments are often made, but often poorly executed. They are a rhetorical tool and people tend to believe them because we like to believe in simple causal chains. Yet, when making important decisions it is important to keep in mind that showing a slippery slope is actually a much more complex argument that describes a very complicated causal chain. With pundits and politicians on both the left and right using these arguments on a nearly daily basis, it is important be aware of their intricacies.