It has been alleged, by some, that the term "Slippery Slope" has become cliché to the point of fiction. This is dangerous line of thinking; like that of the lamb who lieth peacably in new found slumber whilst the ravenous wolf looks hungrily & stealthily upon his next meal. So, is the term "Slippery Slope" become cliché? Let us first look upon the term itself, "Slippery Slope."
Each step down a slippery slope make each subsequent such step all the easier to take & likewise all the more difficult to resist. This fact of politics is as obvious as anything could be. Yet confrontation of it often necessitates a kind of awareness with which too many find inconvenient & uncomfortable.
The so-called "pacifist" will often cry aloud against the act of confrontation. Yet it was not the "pacifist," but the soldier, sailor, marine, privateer, etc., who secured the liberty of America during the Revolutionary War. It was not the "pacifist" who defended American liberty against both German Nazi-ism & Japanese Imperialism. It was the marine, the sailor, the submariner, the airman, the soldier, etc. who did all that. The crosses that carpet the grounds at Normandy testify of the high cost of liberty. And if we who are civilians so easily squander that for which so many have fought & died, what defense for that will we give when we appear before the Throne of God, at the Last Day?
James Madison, in a June 16 1788 speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention*, had this to say "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Was he wrong for having said that? Was he being at all cliché? Нет!
Getting back to the concept of the Slippery Slope; Each step down a slippery slope make each subsequent such step all the easier to take & likewise all the more difficult to resist.
Let's look upon an example; Health in All Policies.
To quote from an address delivered to the Redding City Council on April 1, 2008 concerning a smoking ordinance proposed then: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“[W]hen (decades ago) the idea was first proposed to set aside a few rows of seats on a few selected aeroplanes for exclusive use by non-smokers, few (doubtless) could reasonably have foreseen the present state of smoking restrictions. According to some who remember the then controversy, many who attempted to make the point that the proposal at issue (then) represented an early step down a slippery slope were often derided as conspiracy whackos, irrational alarmists, recalcitrant reactionaries, & the like. Yet, look now at the current state of affairs.
And when Measure A was adopted (some years ago), few anticipated that (years later) some of the most zealous anti-smoking interests would propose a thing that (if implemented statewide) would make criminals out of millions of Californians who use tobacco products in their own homes. Yet as recently as [2007], there were some Bay Area anti-smoking interests proposing just such a rule (which they wanted, then, to see [initial] implementation of at the local level).
And the mentality conducive to the incremental movements herein identified is not exclusive to the issue of tobacco. […]
Now, as yet another incremental step down the progressively slippery slope is here tonight considered, let us ask ourselves the ever politically incorrect question of: 'When is enough enough? Haven't we, as a people gone too far in this direction, already? At what point is the proverbial line in the sand to be drawn?' And let us also resist the temptation to deride those rightly suspicious of society's tendency to, at times, move all to readily down the slippery slope (on certain issues).”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at what has been happening since, salt bans in New York City; monies well excessive of $1M (most of it grant money) spent locally in just the past year or two by Shasta County on the promotion of smoking ordinances, smoke-free housing policies, etc.; bans in NYC & elsewhere against so-called "trans-fats," bans on McDonald's "Happy Meals" in places like San Francisco, turkey sandwiches being regarded (in certain North Carolina preschool) as contraband, etc., etc.
Let's look upon another example; cross removal:
A few years ago, it was unthinkable that a cross memorialising the sacrifices of American service-men (in combat) would be ordered to be removed. Yet take a look at what is happening at a certain Rhode Island WWI memorial. Take a look, also, at the Mt. Solidad cross-removal controversy. Take a look at Michael Newdow's recent attempt to, via lawsuit, attempt to obtain court-ordered removal of words "under God" from Pledge of Allegiance. Take a look at, a few years back, the attempt (in certain Morgan Hill high school) to censor out of existence patriotic t-shirts during Cinco de Mayo, all on the basis of expressions of patriotism allegedly being offensive to those sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens, etc.
Let's take a look at something else, the idea of so-called "hate-speech":
Who, not too many years ago, would have imagined that there would be such a thing as a concept of so-called "hate speech," an idea manifestly designed to silence serious political speech with which certain persons disagree.
Shall I go on (& on, & on, & on)? Or has the point been well enough made?
Some would protest, but what about those instances wherein a given thing alleged to be a step down the Slippery Slope did not lead to another incremental step down?
When people awake to the reality of the Slippery Slope & endeavor to raise alarm against it, there are times where subsequent steps down said Slope are thus made to become (increasingly) politically distasteful for those who otherwise WOULD take us yet another step further down. Many a rebelious teenager may be dissuaded against taking a particular course of action by fear of reaction. But where there is no fear of getting caught, the old saying about "when the cat's away the mice doth play" rings all the more true! Those (of us) who awake against the Slippery Slope often risk being derided as lunatic for having raised alarm. But let he who would so deride answer me this.: Is the burglar alarm a mechanical lunatic for sounding whenever/wherever there is burglary attempt? Does the air raid siren sound for nothing? Is the watchman mad for keeping watch? What absurdity! Is the peace officer who works tirelessly against property crime to be called mad for doing so? What kind of nonsense questioning is that? Caca! Any instance where the Slippery Slope may be momentarily stopped in its tracks is not at all evidence against the exiistence of a Slippery Slope, any more than successful containment & control of crime rates is to be deemed evidence against existence at all of crime, per se.
You need to log in to 24 Hour Patriots to add comments!
Join 24 Hour Patriots