The Slippery Slope

It wasn't so long ago when governments and private individuals began installing surveillance cameras at various locations. There was quite a reaction to it: mostly fear that it was an invasion of our privacy and would lead to greater spying on all of us. 1984 was here.

But now we demand those cameras, as well as body cameras on police and cameras in police vehicles. It's not that we no longer care about privacy, but we recognize their value in keeping us safe and in dealing with criminal activities. (Where would TV crime shows be without surveillance cameras and DNA – or is DNA examination another invasion of privacy?) Some jurisdictions have installed traffic cameras to monitor the violation of various laws, including failure to observe red light rules and stop signs. (Others view such devices as illegal – as first steps in the effort to deprive citizens of their rights.) Nowadays, in addition, we're recorded by the ubiquitous camera-phones operated by everyone seeking his or her fifteen minutes of fame, and a big payoff from some television network if (s)he's fortunate enough to see a murder, police brutality, or another disaster occurring. No one seems alarmed about it.

Do you remember the fall of the Soviet Union? It wasn't so long ago. After several years of violence had occurred in the latter half of the 1980s, most of the member states declared their independence in 1990 and 1991. One after another they established governments separate from the USSR of which they had previously been members. It was almost like a lineup of dominoes, falling in sequence after the first was toppled.

We, in the United States, had been concerned about a similar sequence of events in the previous decades. The “Domino Theory” posited that if any country adopted Communism it would be followed by additional nations, one by one, like a line of dominoes. Many believed that we couldn't afford to lose Vietnam (we did in 1975) for that would lead to Communism conquering the entire far east (it didn't). It was a “slippery slope” argument – that the loss of one battle would eventually lead to the loss of the war. (For the want of a nail the shoe was lost …) And eventually our own freedom would be threatened. It's likely that the same concern was felt by Soviet officials in the years of its dissolution, but Russia still stands and it has been increasing its influence in recent years.

But that's not what those who are worried consider relevant when they present their cases and take their stands. They are convinced that whatever they are protesting is the first step on a “slippery slope” and will eventually lead to some horrible endpoint. And they're sure that once the first step is taken there is no turning back. A typical example of this approach can be found, in the approach of some advocates of the inevitability of this construct, especially with reference to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A fear that failure to defend the “right” of Nazis to march through a community containing numerous Holocaust survivors (Skokie, Illinois) to spread their message of hate would ultimately lead to the complete loss of the right of free speech, caused the American Civil Liberties Union to come to the defense of the marchers. And a fear that including “under G-d” in the Pledge of Allegiance impinged on the rights of non-believers and would eventuate in our country becoming a theocracy prompted protests of the use of this wording in our secular state.

It is noteworthy that previous limitations of speech, like bans on inciting to riot, have not caused us to lose our right to speak out. Indeed, many of the same people who feared the Nazis' loss of rights now support the concept of “hate speech” which they apply to the speech of those who oppose groups they favor.

And while the change is the Pledge of Allegiance has not turned us into theocracy, neither did the chaplains in the military or in Congress, nor the tax benefits for clergy and religious institutions that predated the Pledge debate. Additionally, National Rifle Association officials who fight hard to defend the Second Amendment out of fear that any limitation in gun ownership will lead to a banning of guns entirely are unlikely to acknowledge that previous restrictions – for example, existing laws that govern gun registration – don't do that. Advocates of these absolutist positions are convinced that those who don't support them are evil, and no compromise with evil is possible. For any compromise may lead to even more far-reaching effects (and greater evil).

That perspective is not completely without merit. The first arguments for a “right” of “privacy,” a right not mentioned in the Constitution, were based on an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Warren and Brandeis in reaction to the use of a camera at a party. Nowadays it wouldn't be worth a mention because most of the attendees would have cameras, but Warren and Brandeis viewed it as a massive invasion of privacy. Times change. Indeed, based on that article and its results, so did the Constitution. And since that time American courts have accepted an unwritten constitutional right of privacy – “the right to be let alone.” It's there – or, at least, should be – if you read between the lines. And that right extends to other unwritten areas. (For example, it resulted in the ruling regarding Roe v Wade.)

Change in the understanding of the Constitution is a staple of liberalism. After all, the world is different from what it was over two centuries ago. So it makes sense for the courts to reinterpret a document written then. But others argue that it is a violation of principle, and any change is the first step onto the slippery slope. Many conservatives favor no judicial change. Preferring what was written in the past, they argue against that first step.

But, as I noted already, times change. Societies were formed by those willing to give up some of their freedoms for the protection that society offered. Ours was formed before there was an internet and the hacking of our communications. It was formed before there was terrorism comparable to what we face now. There has always been spying by one government against another, and we have also supervised the actions of our own citizens. Hence the current Patriot Act, which allows for the interception of information that might be prejudicial to our country, is considered by some the first step on a slippery slope that will result in spying on all of us. Their view is that even if supporters of the act have America's good at heart, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” (as is the road to Heaven) and is contrary to our values. Our spying is wrong. And “transparency” of our actions is mandatory. We cannot risk a slip.

But that absolutist position is wrong. Life is a slope, and we're on it. We have to be if we are to adapt to the changes that take place around us. But the slope doesn't have to be slippery. We can make occasional changes, even though these are “exceptions” and are steps on the slope. We can take one step, and stop. Where does common sense come in, and the assumption that most people are honorable? You do what you can and hope for the best.

A belief in a slippery slope is a manifestation of conspiracy theory. And like conspiracy theory it will only lead us in the wrong direction away from the path we need to travel and the changes we need to make.