On Slippery Slopes
Is a drift toward radicalism always inevitable?
As you are likely aware by now, I spend a lot of time on social media. I typically excuse this by explaining that as a writer, social media is a vital networking tool. That is certainly true, though I suspect the cute animal videos I view are gaining me few readers.
Occasionally, things I see on social media actually make me think critically. I know that seems counterintuitive, as much of what passes for debate on social media is the literary equivalent of Muppets engaging in a food fight. But recently, I did see two posts that led me to reflection.
The first was a thread by Robert P. George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. As a member of the academic community, Dr. George has definite opinions on the protests currently rocking many American campuses. He drew his followers’ attention to a thread he had posted soon after Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023. (Follow this link to see his full comments on Twitter.)
George argues that political progressives are drifting toward an increasingly anti-Israel position. Back in November 2023, he likened the current status of Democrats and liberals in relation to Palestine to their position on same-sex marriage in the mid-2000s. Now, in May 2024, George states that support for Israel among Democrats is virtually non-existent.
How are the issues of support for Israel and attitudes on same-sex marriage connected? Here we must review some recent history. If you click on the link to George’s original thread (the one he quote tweeted on May 6 of this year), you will find the following.
When it comes to the events of the first fifteen years of this century, my memories match Dr. George’s. In 2004-05, there was certainly a movement pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, but it was not supported by a majority of the American public. In fact, then-U.S. President George W. Bush was championing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly defining marriage as a heterosexual union. The difficulty of passing constitutional amendments meant Bush’s idea was always a piece of red meat for his conservative base more than a legitimate legal proposal, but it is true that few Republicans would have been caught dead endorsing same-sex marriage at that time and Democrats making a run for president could not afford to endorse it either.
By the time of the 2008 U.S. presidential election, there was greater movement among progressives and Democrats toward acceptance of same-sex marriage, and while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to state their opposition to legalization, they did so with less vehemence, pushing for every lesser measure. Then, as the 2012 presidential campaign kicked into gear, Obama announced his change of mind on the issue. Once their most visible leader had done so, nearly every Democrat fell in lock-step behind him. I got the sense at the time that this was what Obama had truly wanted to do for a long time, and he was merely waiting for the position to become tolerable for voters.
George draws the comparison with Obama and Clinton’s evolution on same-sex marriage to suggest that within the progressive movement, those closer to the political center experience a constant pull toward the radical fringe. The activists have the real power. The party grandees “eventually get themselves into line” and “evolve.”
Here we might also think of current U.S. President Joe Biden’s embrace of federal funding for pregnancy terminations during the 2020 presidential campaign. The activists and politicians are like lightning and thunder, George argues. “It’s not a question of whether the thunder will follow, it’s only a question of when.” Now, several months after his original thread, he surveys the situation on America’s campuses and the policies of the Biden administration and declares his prophecy fulfilled.
Perhaps in response to George’s tweets, Susannah Black Roberts, a writer and editor for the Christian publications Plough and Mere Orthodoxy, tweeted the following.
Roberts asserts that conservatives are as subject to the pull of the radical fringe as liberals. Here my memories again match the author’s. While there have always been what we would now call “Christian nationalist” elements within American conservatism - at least, since World War II - the current MAGA movement (as it is popularly known) has its most direct predecessor not in the Religious Right of the Reagan years, but the Tea Party movement which emerged during President Obama’s first term. Long before they took Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson as heroes, these Americans were flocking to listen to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
When I say flocking, I mean it literally. I remember the day back in 2009. I was living in the Washington, D.C. area. Glenn Beck, then the darling of Fox News viewers, was holding a rally on the National Mall. His special guest was former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, running mate of John McCain. (As an aside, it is shocking to think that in 2008, the Republican Party had been willing to nominate McCain, who is now a hated figure among the MAGA faithful.) What I saw that day was the beginnings of the MAGA movement.
The Republican Party underwent dizzying changes over the subsequent decade. In 2012, when Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee, the old Rockefeller Republicans were already extinct. However, the party was still populated by descendants of old Dixie Democrats and Reagan Republicans, as well as a fair number of neoconservatives. Republicans favored limited government regulation of business, yes, but they were hawkish on national defense and pursued an interventionist foreign policy. While they were conservative socially, the party leadership was not seeking to undo many of the changes in society that had occurred over the past century.
Then came Trump, and he changed the Republican Party. His isolationist foreign policy and praise for leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un horrified neoconservatives. His willingness to reopen societal debates that many had considered closed - such as the legality of abortion - was more radical than many of his recent Republican predecessors, who had pushed a more limited agenda. As Trump ascended, every conservative politician had a choice. They could either adapt to the new brand of conservatism or take their ball and go home.
Some did choose to essentially leave: Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, the McCain family, and many whom Trump had hired to work in the White House. But many more adapted, including those Trump had personally insulted: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, J.D. Vance, Mitch McConnell. Now, Lara Trump (daughter-in-law of the former president) is co-chair of the Republican National Committee, the Republican House delegation is largely at the mercy of its most radical members, and nearly all Trump’s opponents in the quest for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination agreed that the 2020 election had been stolen and they would pardon Trump for any criminal convictions if given the chance. The party has been remade in Trump’s image.
This sea change in policies and increasing devotion to a single person has opened the door for more radical and Christian nationalist elements to come to the fore. Once, they could not get a hearing from Republican leaders who still wished to maintain positive media coverage and gain the votes of centrist women. Trump’s strategy has never relied on those things, so he has little incentive to check those who hold views out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Hence, the rise of Christian nationalism as a visible force.
Roberts argues this phenomenon is virtually identical to that mentioned by George. In both cases, political leaders have been increasingly drawn to the radical fringes, creating the political polarization we now hear about constantly. George considers the process inevitable: thunder will always follow lightning. The slippery slope never fails to draw things to the bottom.
But is it really inevitable? The slippery slope is, after all, considered a logical fallacy. Perhaps you have heard people argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead inevitably to the legalization of polygamy or child marriage. Perhaps you have likewise heard that a politician who mentions the Bible as an important influence on his or her life will inevitably end up supporting a complete re-establishment of the Mosaic Law. In reality, neither of these two situations is inevitable, as we see from the fact that millions of people hold one opinion and not the other.
Of course, the pull of radical voices will always be there, especially since they tend to be the most passionate and therefore the loudest. But the so-called silent majority is also a part of American life, and their votes count as much as those of people you see on the news attempting to decolonize their school’s cafeteria.
What is true for politics is true for all of life. Nearly every position one could take stands somewhere between two extremes, meaning it is possible to halt at some point along the slippery slope, perhaps for a mere moment and perhaps for the rest of one’s life. We all draw red lines beyond which we will not tread, and shifting those lines involves an action of the will - one we need not take. Barack Obama chose to endorse same-sex marriage. He was not seized by some gravity-like force against his will. Likewise, Republican politicians who previously excoriated Obama for not being tough enough against Putin have now chosen to come out against funding for Ukraine.
Ideological drift is not logically inevitable, even if it may seem socially inevitable. Here it is useful to re-examine Roberts’ comments. In her follow-up tweet, she writes, “Benchmark your ethics and beliefs.” That is, take a stand. Draw a line in the sand. Determine what your foundational principles are and refuse to budge.
Of course, that sort of constancy requires a different kind of adaptation. In the case of politicians, it might force them to appeal to those in the political center or even the opposite side of the aisle rather than merely relying on their “base.” In other words, they would have to represent the interests of all Americans. For the rest of us non-politicians, it might mean losing opportunities or friendships. In extreme cases, standing one’s ground can lead to persecution or death.
What is required to prevent ideological drift is therefore fortitude and perseverance: a valuing of the truth for the truth’s sake. That is difficult enough in the realm of politics. In the realm of religion, it may well require supernatural assistance.
As Roberts notes, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. As we endure the fickleness of politicians, what a comfort it is to know that the King of Kings is the unchanging one! It was to him that the martyrs of old looked for the strength to stand against the crowd.
Jesus said, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25 NASB95)
How does one keep from falling down a slippery slope? By clinging to the Rock that stands forever.
Can’t get enough of me here? Why not follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Threads, or Instagram?
PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE:
“A Doom or a Gift?” at Jokien with Tolkien
I know that, at times, I am influenced by the crowd. But some things will not change like my belief that Jesus is my Rock. I doubt myself, but I do not doubt Him. At times, I do not understand Him, but I choose to trust Him. As you said, we make choices.