The Slippery Slope argument is paralyzing our republic

** This is not a political comment, I purposefully avoid those, if you choose to take these thoughts that way that's up to you, but you'll be ignoring my intended purpose.**

In an era when a significant number (if not an outright majority) of politicians at both the state and federal level face more election drama at the primary than the general election level, it has become commonplace for politicians, pundits, and the general public to repeatedly apply the Slippery Slope argument to topic after topic.  To the Left and Planned Parenthood, any reasonable restrictions upon abortion are tantamount to outlawing the procedure, and thus must be met with the fiercest resistance with no compromise even remotely possible.  To the Right and the National Rifle Association, any reasonable restrictions upon guns of any type being owned by anyone are tantamount to the government, "coming for our guns", and thus must be met with the fiercest resistance with no compromise even remotely possible.  This same entrenchment is repeated issue after issue, year after year, resulting in near total paralysis where only a super-majority of one party can advance even basic measures, and sometimes not even that.  The end result is paralysis, an enshrinement of the status quo that can only be shaken, and even then only temporarily, by a disaster on the level of 9/11.

Prior to World War II, isolationists shouted their opposition to the Slippery Slope of F.D.R's willingness to help the British and the Soviets hold off the German onslaught.  F.D.R. demonstrated leadership in that he largely ignored the isolationist voices by pushing Lend-Lease among other efforts to slow down the Nazis, but America as a whole remained woefully unprepared for the war that came on December 7th, 1941.  Had the isolationists possessed the wisdom to accept reality and compromise, the United States military would have been better prepared for war, had F.D.R. given in to their doom and gloom and failed to support our future Allies, the war in Europe would have ended with the Nazis triumphant.

The Slippery Slope argument is of course used by those within the Church as well, particularly against those who are willing to work ecumenically with other Christians, or those willing to admit that our own understanding of theology cannot hope to be perfect.  In too many cases, much needed reform or potential cooperation for the Kingdom is squashed by shrill cries of disaster should the status quo be challenged.

Why is the Slippery Slope such a problem?  Perhaps you like the status quo, at least on a particular issue, and have no qualms with using whatever means are necessary to defend it.  The problem should be obvious, but our inability to recognize it is a symptom of our collective illness: The Slippery Slope is a FEAR based argumentation.  It does not require facts or evidence, it asks no proof, it need only posit a future disaster and simply assumes that one's political or theological enemies are nefarious, up to no good, and perhaps evil incarnate.  Their devious schemes, if successful, would destroy us all, and thus any hint of working with "the other side", any hint of compromise, is the work of the devil.  To govern a people, or run a church, by fear is to make a Faustian bargain; in the short-run there might be "victory" for your side, whatever that is, but in the end, we all lose.

With the advent of media tailored to both the Left and Right, and with social media providing an echo chamber to confirm what each side already believes and shout down any opposition, is there any hope for the future?  There's always hope, but if history is any guide, it will take a moment like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to spur real change, until then fear in daily unrelenting doses will continue to be served up to all those willing to be swayed by it.

** Note, there is also a related dangerous tactic being used regularly when discussing solving problems, I'll call it the All or Nothing.  Those who use it dismiss any proposed reform or change because it won't fix all of the problem, as if fixing part of a problem is a bad thing and only a perfect solution that will fix every conceivable aspect of the problem can be acceptable.  This tactic is simply a way to defend the status quo, whatever it may be, and is used regularly by all sides. **