From the Trojan Horse's Mouth: They Plan on a Slippery Slope

There has been a "a carefully thought out and deliberately funded effort" within the left-liberal political elites to set up "the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer." So says Mark Schmitt at TAPPED.

Also at TAPPED, Adam Serwer endorses the Paul Begala theory that:

The point is that progressive policy initiatives often begin as narrowly as politically possible, but grow into being much more expansive and effective than their opponents ever wanted. The same is going to be true of health-care reform, if it passes, and particularly if Democrats follow Mark Schmitt's advice and use the reconciliation process in subsequent years to ensure inclusion of some of the more controversial elements of the plan. But none of this can happen if nothing passes -- and make no mistake, Republicans aren't trying to kill end of life counseling. They're not trying to kill the public plan. They're trying to kill reform itself, because they know that even if reform falls far short of liberal expectations today, someday it won't.

As I opined a while back, the left is counting on Obamacare being the first step on a slippery slope to single payer, government run health care:

Obamacare also illustrates yet another situation in which slippery slope arguments are valid; namely, the case in which the proponents of taking the first step intend to keep pushing us down the slope. Again, I quote Volokh:

... movements rarely just disband after a victory. Successful movements often have paid staff who are enthusiastic about pushing for further action, and unenthusiastic about losing their jobs. They have experience at swaying swing voters. They have an organizational structure, media contacts, and volunteers and contributors. It seems likely that they will choose some new proposal to back.

This possible slippage seems likelier still if the pro-A movement’s leadership is already on the record as supporting a broader proposal B. For instance, many leaders in the gun control movement have publicly supported total handgun bans, even though their groups are today focusing on more modest controls; and some gun control advocates have specifically said that their strategy is to win by incremental steps. Likewise, if a group’s proposal is so modest that it seems unlikely to accomplish the group’s own stated goals, then one might suspect that a victory on this step will necessarily be followed by broader proposals—which might be more easily implemented because of the momentum created by the first step. In such cases, foes of B may well be wise to try to block A, rather than wait until the pro-B movement has been strengthened by a success on A.
This is precisely the problem with Obamacare.

What's interesting is that so many on the left are willing to make what appears to be an admission against interest, but perhaps they feel it is needed to keep their less insightful troops in line.

It's also why those of us who worry about slippery slopes want to see Obamacare killed in the womb.

Comments

[J.C. Breach]

Does the slippery slope argument fail to account for the checks and balances in the political system that will presumably remain intact and that would prevent further expansion of government into the health care sector beyond what is politically acceptable? But if, over time, the American political system did in fact permit increasing involvement by the state into matters of health care, wouldn't this outcome simply be representative of the will of electorate? While I can understand the current policy disagreements regarding health care reform, the slippery slope argument seems to either ignore how the political system functions or implies an anti-democratic bias. Am I incorrect in my impressions? Thank you for your time.

[save_the_rustbelt]

The musings of my favorite health care finance expert.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/08/doomsday-scenario.html

[Rick Perlstein]

OT--very OT. Wish I had been able to respond more fully to Professor Bainbridge's thoughtful post sooner, but I'm way behind on this stuff. Luckily I did a web chat at the Washington Post web site yesterday in which I put up an answer which says what I'd like to say to this community too. Interested to hear what people think.

---

Silver Spring, Md.: Isn't there craziness on both sides? Why do you ignore the left-on-right variety? How do you know right-on-left is the primary type? Surely there is an argument beyond the pileup of anecdotes.

Rick Perlstein: This is a really, really important question, one I've been asked constantly in the last few days.

Here's a difference. Some people think "Code Pink" is crazy. Let's grant that for the sake of argument. Well, Democratic politicians don't like Code Pink. They don't encourage Code Pink. In fact, Code Pink feels so alienated from the Democratic Party that one of their leaders is running against Nancy Pelosi.

It is the opposite in the Republican Party today: now people who fairly can be considered leaders (like Rush Limbaugh, and the congressman yesterday who refused to condemn bringing guns to political meetings) have made themselves the frank allies of extremists. And the mainstream media has abetted this in a way they would never do with left wing extremists. When is the last time you saw a member of the Animal Liberation Front on CNN?

It was the same way in the late 1960s with the violent New Left and the Democratic Party. There was NO congressman or senator who supported them. None. Ever.

Some people have been distorting my argument by pointing out that some people who were violent leftists in the 1960s and 1970s were friendly with politicians long, long, long after they re-entered the mainstream. I can't stand Bill Ayers because I think he lies about his past (he claims all he cared about was ending the Vietnam War when actually the Weathermen were quite explicitly that they were working to foment a violent overthrow of the American government--read their manifestos). But he was a legitimate and law-abiding and non-violent member of the Chicago progressive community by the time Barack Obama met him. It was quite possible--as Obama claims is the case-- not to know about his past.

There's a trope in right-wing culture going back to the Cold War that if someone once was a revolutionary, they must still be a revolutionary, only they're hiding it--for the purposes of furthering the revolution. This silly paranoia has to stop. People are allowed to change (though I wish Ayers would be more forthright about his past and apologize, which he smarmily avoids doing).

[me.yahoo.com/a/UWhdJskt3sUD2baQ9SAJ6FMY2XCv]

There is a reason they call themselves "progressives"...they are progressing towards something - namely socialism.

[Paul Diczok]

It's not an admission "against interest." It's either an admission (if made by a party to a lawsuit) or a statement against interest.

[billy lauderdale]

Public Option cost to business is LOWER than
private plans.

My business pays 13% of payroll on healthcare plans.

So 8% tax to send everyone to public option would
be obvious move.

The tax will increase every year to pay for it though. The bridge back will be burned.

The will be no "competition" the government always wins.

[kwo]

Kevin Drum wrote the same thing yesterday...

"But the important thing, I think, is to pass a law that makes the principle of universal coverage the law of the land. Once that's in place, there's no going back even if the first pass is highly imperfect."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/big-bang-healthcare

Interesting how so many elite leftists bring up the same talking points so coincidentally.

[Michael W. Perry]

Quote: "It's also why those of us who worry about slippery slopes want to see Obamacare killed in the womb."

Not a good analogy. A baby is innocent and deserves a birth. Try something more like, "drive a stake through it's heart before it awakes." This is a life-sucking monster deserving of death.

[mad-as-H]

THE 2010 ELECTION HAS BEGUN.

We don't WANT representatives who don't represent their constituents.

HOLD YOUR OWN TOWN HALL MEETINGS IN LOCAL SCHOOLS!
INVITE CONSERVATIVES, INDEPENDENTS, PLUMBERS, ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO RUN AGAINT YOUR INCUMBENT.

CARD CHECK at the door to keep out UNION THUGS.
THIS IS A SERIOUS SUGGESTION. THINK ABOUT IT.

We citizens can pick OUR OWN candidates.
We can't do worse than OBAMA, PELOSI, SCHUMER, DODD, FRANK, REID, HOYER, LEAHEY, ETC.

SCREW THE DNC AND RNC.
SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

[harleycowboy]

After the abortion of Obamacare, can we sterilize the parents also?

[rvail136]

Good post Professor. It's also called the "camel's nose under the tent" strategy.

[DensityDuck]

You know, I'm actually okay with such naked declarations of intent. It's a lot easier to argue against a position when there IS a position to argue against.

Up until this point, the Dem/Left answer to every health-care question has been "yes". Yes, there'll be rationing. Yes, there'll be unlimited coverage. Yes, there'll be a public option. Yes, we'll subsidize private insurance. Yes you can keep your insurance, yes employers aren't mandated, yes there's an individual-citizen mandate, yes there's death panels, yes we won't base allowable coverage on age/weight/race/sex/religion/political-affiliation/state/city/car/smoker/income/whatever. Yes yes yes yes. Thank God they've grown the balls needed to stand up and say "No" about something!

[Francis W. Porretto]

What you describe above put me in mind of Maya Angelou's maxim: "When a man shows you who he is, believe him." I'd say the same applies to a "reform movement" -- or a political party.

Listen to what they say, but watch what they do. Above all, watch what they do!

[Kristo Miettinen]

Dear Professor,

This seems to me to not be a slippery slope argument, but rather a runaway gun argument.

The slippery slope is a formal argument depending on denying half of an accepted disjunction, i.e. if you accept that either A or B, and we agree to deny A, they you must accept B. The "slippery slope" imagery refers to the presumed lack of any tenable middle ground between A and B (usually meaning that self-consistent sets of beliefs are possible for A or B, but not elsewhere), and A and B are usually understood as ends of a continuum of (untenable) intermediate alternatives.

The runaway gun is a persuasive argument rather than a logical one, and it depends on accepting that something (an agent or force or hazard of some sort) can only be controlled in one position (usually the status quo), so that moving the controlled thing from its controlled position to some other position will free it to continue moving elsewhere of its own volition or inertia. The reference is to a cannon in its wheeled carriage on the deck of a sailing warship; various facilities are provided ondeck for securing the cannon in its firing location (while allowing for recoil), but a gun that gets free from its firing position will not sit still elsewhere on the moving deck of a rolling ship (and the means to secure it are lacking elsewhere as well).

[CJColucci]

The phrase "admission against interest" always made my Evidence teacher's very prominent eyebrows go up.

[Korla Pundit]

This was the slippery slope employed by the Nanny state mayor of New York. Ban smoking in restaurants, then in bars. Heck, most people don't have a problem with that. But it was always designed to lead into banning transfats, then forcing restaurants to make smaller holes in their salt shakers, and eventually we will be forced to give up red meat and sugar.

First they came for the smokers. Not that I mind seeing smokers banned from my favorite restaurants. But THAT's what makes it so easy for the statists to take control over every facet of every life.

[Banjo]

This will be like a cage fight. The side that wants to win most will prevail. Going back to Marxist days, the left usually pulls out the win because it sticks around to pass the resolutions after people with lives go home.

[gmerits]

There is a way to kill ObamaCare and it has been known for months, but nobody is talking about it on a national level.

This could be titled: Rules for thee but not for me.

ObamaCare can be killed dead in its tracks: http://tinyurl.com/lnkr9v.

Nobody is talking about Senator Jim Demint's amendments that would require a 60-vote majority to pass any health care reform under certain conditions described in the link provided. Senator Kent Conrad of the Finance Committee just decided to drop the 60 vote requirements in committee.

One amendment was passed unanimously and the other by a margin of 79-14.

This is the tactic that can kill ObamaCare. The Social Security Institute (www.socialsecurityinstitute.org) and the National Tax-Limitation Committee (www.limittaxes.org) are desperately trying to bring this to national attention.

After reading http://tinyurl.com/lnkr9v, please call Senator Demint's office at 202-224-6121. I was told he would most likely bring it up after the recess. Most likely does not cut it. While I greatly appreciate the work done to date by Senator Demint, and he is working tirelessly for our rights, these amendments are his babies and he should be hopping mad and screaming this from the national rooftops.

[Groucho Engels]

You seem to be assuming that "the left" is a homogeneous entity. It seems more likely that there are people on the left who want a public option and people who want single payer and a few that advocate this scheme you refer to.

Regardless of the numbers you can't assign this strategy to all of "the left".

[MarkJ]

"...the left usually pulls out the win because it sticks around to pass the resolutions after people with lives go home."

I think in this case, however, the "people with lives" have brought cots with them and intend to set up camp for as long as necessary.

[dicentra]

"Does the slippery slope argument fail to account for the checks and balances in the political system that will presumably remain intact and that would prevent further expansion of government into the health care sector beyond what is politically acceptable?"

No, not in the least.

What happens is that the limited law goes into effect, then the bureaucrats take over, and from then on they enact policies that do not go through congress.

These policies always have the effect of expanding the control of the bureaucracy and expanding the intent and scope of the original law.

And don't forget the Banality of Evil:
http://oceanaris.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-banality-of-evil-the-health-care-debate-takes-a-dangerous-turn/

Quoth Wesley J Smith in "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America":

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

From Nat Hentoff's piece here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3

[Jamie]

J.C. Breach, you ask, "Does the slippery slope argument fail to account for the checks and balances in the political system that will presumably remain intact and that would prevent further expansion of government into the health care sector beyond what is politically acceptable?"

"Checks and balances" refers to the power of the branches of government relative to one another, not to whether minority voices (or in this case, majority ones!) will be heard and their concerns addressed. In a situation like the one we're in, where our elected representatives in two out of three branches of the federal government have the bit between their teeth about something, vox populi may no longer be important, or important enough to stop the headlong rush over the cliff. (Darn horses.)

Thanks loads, Obama voters and "teach-em-a-lesson" Republicans who either abstained from voting, picked untenable third-party Congressional and Presidential candidates to vote for, or jumped ship to vote for Democrats; we're going to be paying for your kooky idealism and grumpiness, respectively, for a long time.

[mockmook]

"But if, over time, the American political system did in fact permit increasing involvement by the state into matters of health care, wouldn't this outcome simply be representative of the will of electorate?"

Possibly.

But it will also be unconstitutional (unless that is amended).

What is wrong with letting the will of the people operate at the state level for this issue?

[Charlie]

The Fabian socialists of Edwardian England (the Webbs, H. G. Wells, G. B. Shaw, most notably) named themselves after the Roman general who successfully opposed the Carthaginian invasion through stealth and maneuver. They felt it was asking too much for the average citizen to understand the brilliance of their plans, and so decided that dissembling in order to get their schemes adopted was acceptable for the greater good.

The DNA of the Fabians has survived within progressives ever since.

[Ignorance is Bliss]

Does the slippery slope argument fail to account for the checks and balances in the political system that will presumably remain intact and that would prevent further expansion of government into the health care sector beyond what is politically acceptable?

My biggest problem with this bill is that it bypasses further checks and balances between here and single payer. This bill would give the administration the power to subsidize the public option and regulate private insurance to the point of driving private insurance out of the market. No more legislation would be needed. At that point, free market insurance is dead.
That may not be the intent of people pushing for this legislation, and it may not be how it would be administered. But there would be no checks or balances.