Will He Walk the Talk?

One of the more dire predictions concerning an Obama presidency is that he will waste no time reviving the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, “which is intended to shut down talk radio”, according to Michael Barone in yesterday's paper. Well yes, of course anything that includes the work “fairness” is inevitably designed to discriminate against someone, and discriminate for someone else. That's the essential meaning of the word “fairness” as it is bandied about our political landscape. “Fairness” in this sense is not to be confused with impartiality, which has a bit more of the blindfolded-spirit-of-Justice feel about it. “Fairness” is more likely to be aimed at righting past wrongs – like slavery, for example. Thus it knows no limits of time and space, and has no use for the concept of individual responsibility. White people in the U.S. today are every bit as responsible for slavery as were the actual slave owners of the early 1800s – and they must be made to pay. An American president can go to East Africa and apologize for slavery in America, even though all of our slaves came from West Africa (but they all look alike anyway, right Bill? I swear, these Southern white males!). Any German who was alive before V-E Day, even if a babe in arms, is responsible for the “Holocaust”. In fact, every German alive today is responsible, as is every German who will ever live. (I wonder if this extends to all the Turkish immigrants now living in Germany. Isn't Armenia enough bad karma for them?) Any woman who was ever raped gets to blame any man who ever lived... with the possible exception of gays, I suppose.

And so on! You'll notice in all of this that there is not the slightest hint of holding individuals responsible for injustices, but only groups, as defined by race, ethnicity, language, gender, gender identity, and what not. It is one of the more extreme manifestations of the collectivist mindset... which is why it is so solidly enshrined in our legal and political systems. And by the way, all the “reparations” in the world are of no avail – nothing can ever make up for past offenses. But this fact doesn't dim the cries for reparations, not at all. I mean, it's better than nothing, right?

And as a matter of fact, I will claim – and justly, I believe – that virtually every law on the books in this country – tax law in particular -- is based on someone's concept of “fairness”, rather than any sort of absolute judgment about what is good, true, and right. Just take a look at the tax code sometime. You can very readily picture, for every single provision, that at some point someone whined, "It's not fair!" and thus did the code grow like the mother of all tumors. And since “fairness” is a purely subjective notion, and its manifestations are purely political, it follows that our laws, and our legal system, have a purely political base, with very little to do with traditional concepts of justice. It's more a matter of who has the upper hand at the moment, and who is in a position to yell, “Gotcha!”

So let's forget about the notion of any sort of “Fairness Doctrine” representing principles that one might regard with respect and honor. It is, and can be, no such thing. Hence it is another one of the political menagerie of grotesque ideas that, once they are turned into The Law, become a weapon which a grievance group can use against its alleged tormentors. But! Having said that, three questions (at least) remain: (1) Will Obama and his worshipers in Congress in fact revive the Fairness Doctrine; (2) Will it, in fact, spell the end of “talk radio” and its TV counterparts (O'Reilly et al.); and (3) Why is the “right” so helpless in face of this prospect?

As to the first question – if you subscribe to the notion that I discussed in a previous post that an Obama administration will need the “Neocons” just as much as Bush & Co. need them, the answer is not so clear. We've already concluded that Obama isn't going to do squat about getting us out of Iraq, because the decision will not be his to make. It's also true that the Neocons are the primary political and intellectual (if I can abuse that term a bit) engine that is keeping the “War on Terrorism” (and the “War on Drugs” as well) moving along at full speed. And what is the primary and indispensable interface between the Neocons and the American public? Why, talk radio, of course. Do you suppose that public support of all of these Neocon “wars” would be anywhere near as strong as it is without the constant drumbeat of talk radio – Limbaugh et al. -- all these years? Highly unlikely. And it is that public support that is the bread and butter of any politician, or party, or administration that chooses the Neocon road to the New World Order, or whatever it's called these days. Do American corporations lobby the public directly to continue to support the war by voting for pro-war politicians? Not that I'm aware. Do the Evangelicals lobby the public directly? Yes, if you're talking about that portion of the public that attends one of their “mega-churches” or watches them on TV. But otherwise no, and the Evangelicals are going to have a hard time holding on to their Washington, DC base in the event of an Obama victory. Does Israel lobby the public directly? Heck no – if you've got the politicians in the palm of your hand you certainly don't need the hapless American public. So who does that leave to keep the rolled-up-sleeves, we'll-teach-those-ragheads-a-lesson-they'll-never-forget, American fighting spirit in top form? The Neocons, and their primary media outlet, namely talk radio. And this fact will mysteriously dawn on Obama at some point soon after he takes office, and this whole “Fairness Doctrine” issue will wind up on the back burner if not in the ash can.

But -- “what if” the Fairness Doctrine were, in fact, revived in order to pay back all of the sorely aggrieved Obama supporters who expect some payback for their efforts? I doubt very much if the doctrine would actually include the terms “talk radio”, or “right-wing”, or “conservative”. Why couldn't the stations, or networks, that host “talk radio” programs simply expand their format to include left-wing talk radio programs? Wouldn't that fill the bill? Surely the folks who listen to Limbaugh are perfectly capable of twiddling the dial whenever James Carville, or someone of that ilk, comes on. Unless, of course, the FCC is going to monitor every single radio set in the country to make sure it's actually turned on for as many “left wing” hours as “right wing” hours... and that someone over the age of 3 is actually listening at the time. (Don't laugh – it could happen, and it has, in such hotbeds of free speech as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.)

Now, as to the alleged helplessness of the “right” in the face of the Fairness Doctrine juggernaut – what would be wrong with, for example, taking all of the major networks (the MSM) to court the minute the doctrine is reinstated, and suing for equal time for conservative viewpoints? It should not be difficult to demonstrate that the bulk of the material currently broadcast is decidedly leftist. I mean, Air America and Pacifica Radio are low-hanging fruit, and could be dispatched with no trouble, but I can't imagine CBS, for example, getting off Scot free either. In other words, why can't conservatives get up off their white bread-fed butts and start playing the game too? This could, in fact, more than any other strategy, send the Fairness Doctrine back to its grave faster than anything else. Actually, it might be interesting to just let the campaign for it roll on, but then get ready to hit the mattresses the minute it's passed. The problem with conservatives is that they still value politeness and civility – but those qualities are wasted when it comes to the “culture wars”. Better to fight the left on their terms and in their ballpark, since that's where the American political landscape is located anyway. Think, for example, of the “hate crime” campaign, which was clearly designed to punish white male heterosexuals for any and all “crimes” against non-white and/or non-male and/or homosexual “persons”. But the laws couldn't actually say that, so they were passed with more or less “neutral” language... and guess what! A large portion of the people hauled in for “hate crimes” turned out to be black! Oops! Never mind! But by then it was too late. I say, hoist them on their own petard, and let the chips fall where they may... and... OK, I'm running out of shopworn metaphors.