Off the Cliff

We conservatives are oft heard referring to to threat of incrementalization-- what is commonly known as "the slippery slope". For instance, if it makes sense to help the poor and unfortunate by forcing their employers to pay them eight dollars an hour, why not nine? Why not fifteen? Why not fifty, with full medical benefits, child care, and a brand new Prius for them to drive to work? Or in another common example: if it is incumbent upon the government to grant marital benefits to homosexuals, then why not to vegesexuals? Or people who want to marry their pet marmosets? Why should they be excluded? And don't try to suggest such people don't exist. We all know they do, and if it's OK to marginalize them now, it won't be once we begin to slide down the-- say it with me-- "slippery slope".

What I am beginning to wonder, however, is if the slippery slope has already come and gone, probably sometime during the Clinton years. What if there was a cliff at the bottom of that slope, and we're already off it, falling, speeding toward terminal velocity, beyond any hope whatsoever of going back? Pretty hopeless, eh? I'd sure like to think otherwise-- I'm a generally optimistic guy-- but I think it may indeed be too late. Here's my evidence.

The other day, I heard a very well-known conservative talk show host (not Rush Limbaugh, thankfully, but one of his fill-ins) agree with a caller on the following point: the Democrats won the last election because people no longer cast their votes on ideas and issues, they cast their votes based on which candidate their favorite comedians, singers and actors say is cool. Therefore (this caller claimed) we should embrace this new reality and send out our own army of comedians, singers and actors, intent on making conservative candidates cool enough for these dolts to vote for.

The host, woefully, agreed whole-heartedly.

I don't need to tell you what is wrong with this, but there are probably a few others who don't see the point, which is this: for the first time in the history of planet earth, people are making their most important life decisions-- decisions about their leaders, about their spirituality, about what to stick in their mouths, heads and hearts-- without depending on critical thinking, a study of the issues, or conversations with people of different perspectives. For the first time in history, these weighty decisions are being made based on peer pressure, cool-factor, fictional representations, and the opinions of people paid to pretend to be other people (actors). This is bad enough. What's worse is that our own leaders are not suggesting that we fight this tide of intellectual laziness, but that we embrace it.

Take, for example, the recent announcement that supreme court justice Souter is planning to retire. Conversation immediately turned to who Obama might choose as his replacement. One would assume the conversations might have centered around any potential candidate's legal and intellectual qualifications. Perhaps there might have been some in-depth analyses of the candidates' experience, record, writings, education, etc. In short, one would have expected that the main issues would revolve around said candidate's ability to actually perform the duties required by the highest court in the land. Alas, this was not the case. What, instead, has been the meat of the discussion about Justice Souter's replacement? Whether this person will be a woman. Or a black. Or maybe a hispanic.

This should seem utterly preposterous to our leaders-- a superficial mockery of what the office of Supreme Court justice stands for-- and yet it apparently doesn't. These ridiculously meaningless and insignificant considerations are debated with utter seriousness by the "watchdog" media. No Republican leader, so far as I know, has said "Wait a minute. Shouldn't we actually be discussing this person's legal qualifications a bit more than their gender or the color of their skin? I thought judging people on those details was wrong and racist?" No GOP leader is saying that because if they did they'd instantly be called wrong and racist. That, however, is no excuse.

This, unfortunately, is the reality of the post-Obama-election-age. The country's first MTV president has finally firmly established the fact that a slim majority of Americans now vote for a presidential candidate based entirely on what the TV tells them. And I'm not even talking about the news media. I am talking about singers and actors, about fictional representations of the world as seen through the lens of programs ranging from The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live to Family Guy and Gossip Girl. We conservatives get sidetracked complaining about the "liberal media", but the sad reality is that Americans aren't getting their political views from NBC News, CNN, and the Washington Post. They are getting them from Brian Griffin (the dog on Family Guy, for you uninitiates), Sheryl Crow, and Tina Fey. They are abandoning their most important decisions to fictional characters, from Stephen Colbert to Matt Damon (and yes, he is a fictional character; all of his lines are written by moveon.org and George Soros). Most Americans believe-- subconsciously, if not overtly-- that Sarah Palin is a character played by Tina Fey. They have no more idea of what Ms. Palin has actually said than they do the words of the actual consitution of the United States.

For the first time in history, average Americans now judge entire populations of people -- specifically conservatives and Christians -- based entirely on their fictional representation, rather than on actual observations of any specific conservatives or Christians. Try this: ask any liberal what a conservative and/or Christian is like. They will give you some variation of the popular stereotype, i.e. they are anti-science, bigoted, homophobic, hate-filled, brainless, hayseeds and rednecks. Nod wisely, and then, as innocently as possible, ask them this: do you know conservatives and Christians like that? Can you name names? Prediction: the liberal will hem and haw a moment, and then blurt out the name of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. You may choose to remind them that they probably don't know those people (and likely have never even listened to their shows), but such a reminder would be pointless and will probably just get you fired, ostracized, and called a bitch by some gay gossip columnist. In short, it really isn't worth the effort, because your liberal friend is utterly convinced that the representation he/she has seen on TV is true and accurate, even if they don't personally know anyone like that.

I think the people that propose that we conservatives embrace the "popularity contest" mentality of the post-Obama age recognize the truth of what I am proposing. They know that we are over the cliff-- there's no turning back. It is no longer possible to appeal to the masses based on logic, experience and debate. Thus, these leaders tell us, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The problem is, conservatism will never be "cool". Conservatism relies on a moral, intellectually honest, logic-based worldview. It cannot be tranformed into something that is merely shallow, hip, and rooted in instant emotional gratification. Even if we wanted to, we cannot promote conservatism in the same way that Democrats can hype liberalism. It'd be like trying to hawk broccoli at a baseball game: "GET yer nuTRICious BROCK-leee! Steamed FRESH and HOT! GOOD and good FOR ya..." It'd be funny, but nobody'd be buying it. If we can't convince people to eat their veggies by getting them to actually care about what's good for them, then there is no hope whatsover. In the same way, if we cannot convince the country to vote conservative based on what is best for themselves and the country, there is no way we will get them to vote conservative based on how yummy it is. Liberalism may be an abject failure in terms of effectiveness and intellectual soundness, but its got the market cornered on yumminess, and that's pretty much all anybody cares about anymore.

This is why I fear that the argument for the "slippery slope" is now officially moot. That argument only works when there is time to stop the slide. I fear that that time is now past. Take a look around. The slope is history. We're off the cliff now, falling into the abyss. All that's left now, I suppose, is to enjoy the ride.

Wheee.