Normally the slippery-slope style argument predicts (sometimes but not always fallaciously) a kind of political or moral disaster if a certain kind of thing is allowed. For this reason I sometimes wonder whether such an argument should be called "argument from permissiveness." For, if we permit gay marriage, then all manner of things must also be allowed (triple marriage, quadruple marriage, limited liability companies, etc.). They serve usually as a warning against something relatively minor and incremental: if they get their foot in the door, then you will have to contend with consequences x, y, and dreaded z!
On this topic, the blogosphere is a aflame with Orrin Hatch's dire warning about the consequences of socialized medicine:
HATCH: That’s their goal. Move people into government that way. Do it in increments. They’ve actually said it. They’ve said it out loud.
Q: This is a step-by-step approach —
HATCH: A step-by-step approach to socialized medicine. And if they get there, of course, you’re going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody’s going to say, “All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party.”
Q: They’ll have reduced the American people to dependency on the federal government.
HATCH: Yeah, you got that right. That’s their goal. That’s what keeps Democrats in power.
There is also a little bit of "you're only saying that because. . . " in here: the Democrats only want health care reform because it keeps them in power. I think there are more pressing reasons to want it, such as the fact that our current system is killing us, but maybe I'm naive.
The weird thing about this particular slippery slope is that the consequence Hatch warns against is that people are going to like the Democratic party. Such will be their adoration that they abolish by their votes the two-party system.
In the first place I think that's very unlikely, but if it were likely–and if Hatch weren't just lying–he'd see that he has just admitted that people would embrace the idea of "socialized medicine"–if they didn't like it,they wouldn't continue in Hatch's fantasy scenario to vote for Democrats.
This seems like just the latest of many overt claims that Obama will somehow “destroy America” and turn us into the dreaded single-party communist beast. Which of course is probably just nonsense. Even if the Republican party eventually falls apart due to conservative/fundamentalist struggles as we are seeing in the New York 23rd, there will always be true conservatives to take up the banner of conservatism and limited government. The Libertarian party is still around and I think would love that opportunity to enter the debate as equals.
I predict the Democratic party itself would likely splinter as they’re hardly as capable of unification as the Republicans are. Some Blue Dogs could decide to join a conservative party once the religious nuts are removed, or even form their own party. Without the Republican political machine in play, I suspect even the Black and Latino caucuses would have little left to gain by holding hands with the farther left environmental and LGBT folks.
America requires neither the Republicans or Democrats, or even an evenly divided two-party congress to survive. The constitution is far better than that.
>>> “Normally the slippery-slope style argument predicts (sometimes but not always fallaciously) a kind of political or moral disaster if a certain kind of thing is allowed. ” <<<
The non-fallacious slippery slope is one that is sufficiently cautious to predict an outcome that is reasonably likely, or postulates a more modest slope? Or is it judged in retrospect – “He said this would take us down the slippery slope, and here we are at the bottom”? Given that you can make a slippery slope argument about pretty much anything.
Good example of a slippery slope, John.
To me, the concern with the Health-care reform has to do more with government incompetency rather than all these “unknown consequences”. We work directly right now with the government on distributing/administrating the H1N1 flu vaccine, and the whole thing is a joke.
That being said, I admire Obama and his administration for trying to tackle this huge issue.
This is a case where I think Hatch’s dread conclusion might be terrifying to his backers, but not the general population. Internal Republican strategy memos from the 90s under Gingrich, Luntz, etc. concluded that universal health care would be popular and would help the Democrats keep power, and thus had to be stopped. It’s a shame that, one, political manuevering would so grossly outweigh concerns about the good of the country, and two, there’s little value seen in cooperative problem-solving that could improve the reputations of both parties. A significant percentage of voters are more pragmatic than ideological. If both parties merely competitively pandered to the middle class (in terms of actual policy), it would be a huge improvement over the current political landscape. I think Benen or someone else labeled Hatch’s statement a political gaffe as defined by Kinsley – accidentally telling the truth. He’s not the first one to say something similar on health care – some attacks on the public option have been warnings that people will like it – but Hatch’s is a keeper. Early on, he was more conciliatory in tone on reform efforts, but either he changed his mind or dropped the facade.
>>> “We work directly right now with the government on distributing/administrating the H1N1 flu vaccine, and the whole thing is a joke”
BN — Do you imagine that the government can “command” bacteria to grow faster on eggs?.
If we had to wait for the “free market” to respond to a crisis, it would be too late.
jay, while I don’t want to go into too many details, I’ll just add that the problem I’m referring to is not the fact that the government over-estimated how many vaccines will be available, but rather their incompetency in distributing the existing vaccines . Again, this has nothing to do with a political party (see Katrina). It’s just the way our government is.
Also, you make the claim: “If we had to wait for the “free market” to respond to a crisis, it would be too late.” When did I say anything like that? I never denied that the government should distribute vaccines to its citizens. All I was arguing was that if they’re so incompetent in handling that small of a task, maybe they’re not qualified to handle a major health-care reform.
And to be a little selfish here, what is there in this plan for me? Absolutely nothing, just more taxes.
Thanks for the clarifications BN. You actually didn’t endorse a private solution.
However–what is in the private insurance plan for you now is the pet rsistent threat of denial of coverage or bankruptcy should you get sick. Remember also that the industrialized nations who have universal coverage pay on average half of what we do and get more. Hurray for America.
John , you are right (like usual).
It seems to work for other countries, so it should work for us too. However, I’m afraid that there are some major concerns that can’t be ignored. USA is a lot like other industrialized nations, but there are still some major differences:
20 millions illegal immigrants,
the size of our country(number of people and area),
McDonald’s :), the current physical state of a large majority (check out this disturbing statistic: Obesity) ,
the medical malpractice (this probably is a factor, but not as major as the Republicans would have us believe),
the quality/cost of health-care.
the number of physicians (More doctors needed)
That’s why I feel that some expectations are just not realistic. I would love it if they would take the 2 plans (Rep. and Dem.) and try them out in 2 states for a while. We can see how they would work first hand.
Maybe it’s just my personality and I’m afraid of big changes, but then again the government does not have exactly a good track on their promises. ( Unemployment Promises vs Reality)
Thanks BN–but I would say those are all reasons to have universal coverage–and no, I don’t think the illegal immigrants are going to get any. Their being illegal, of course, is another problem.
You lie, John! You lie 🙂 No, seriously now, my concern with the 20 millions illegal immigrants is not that they will be covered, but rather that they will continue to abuse the current system. I worked for medical collection agency and you’d be surprised at the medical expenses for emergencies that come from this specific group. I don’t think they should be denied emergency treatment, but someone is paying these expenses.
Few people seriously advocate “abuse,” but in any case, I’m sure as someone who worked in medical collections, you saw your share of tragic stories. What we have now in this country is beneath us.
It is. That’s why I agree with the overall idea: something needs to be done.
>>> ” All I was arguing was that if they’re so incompetent in handling that small of a task, maybe they’re not qualified to handle a major health-care reform.
Is this your opinion? I don’t see how you derive that from any facts. The distribution is being done better than any “non-government” health provider has demonstrated. The vacine is being distributed and given to millions of people.
The US government has been building a better America for over 200 years – that’s a better track record than any “business” interests.