Liberals are chafing at the bit, waiting for regime change in Washington to give them the ability to reinstate the “fairness doctrine;” a regulation which requires talk radio stations to devote equal programming hours to both liberal and conservative formats. All it would take is a Democrat president and a couple of appointments to the Federal Communications Commission to accomplish it.
Of course the use of the word “fairness” in relation to this “doctrine” is an awful abuse of our language. Commercial radio markets, like all other free enterprise markets, are already inherently fair. They operate on profits generated from satisfied customers rather than some bureaucrat’s idea of what’s fair. This means talk radio programs are only viable as long as they can draw a listening audience large enough to attract the biggest advertisers and therefore the most lucrative profits. This is why conservative talk radio — and religious talk radio — succeed and liberal talk radio fails. Face it, folks: liberals are boring.
By re-instituting this doctrine, liberals will be telling radio stations to ignore the market and match every hour of “conservative talk radio” with the kind of Al Franken dribble that no advertiser will pay to be a part of because no one outside of Franken’s immediate family will be listening to it. At heart, this is simply an attempt to get Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves so those wonderful people who brought us Jimmy Carter can bring us Obama, higher taxes, government regulation, and a homosexual-friendly military.
The sheer cultural ugliness that would result from the reinstitution of the “fairness doctrine” and other liberal doctrines is something I refer to as “multiculturalism’s monoculture.” Multiculturalism ultimately is a “monoculture” because the academics and other liberals who worship it as much as they worship global warming are intolerant of diverse political thought. They insist on imposing their ideology — their monoculture — on us all. Those whose worldviews are framed by multiculturalism are not pursuing the inclusion of multiple cultures and viewpoints as they pretend, but the exclusion of all except their culture and viewpoint; their monoculture, if you will.
While the Leftists in Congress seek to impose this monoculture by legislation (and other liberals through the court system), academicians seek it through classroom tyranny. Viewing themselves as the few, the proud, and the anointed, such academicians seek to indoctrinate rather than educate, thus they oppress the free exchange of ideas, putting in its place a “learning environment” only a Stalinist could love.
I learned this the hard way during my graduate studies when I accidentally wore a “Bush/Cheney” baseball cap on campus. I had not worn the hat to make a statement, but simply because it was the first cap I saw as I was leaving the house. Nonetheless, a professor spotted me outside of the classroom and said, “Take that damn hat off.” I did not ask if a “Kerry/Edwards” cap would have been acceptable, I know it would have; for it would have conformed to their monoculture.
Although the incident with the cap makes the point, another university experience burned the reality of the Left’s demand for a monoculture into my mind. It happened in a course in which the professor spent much of her time pointing out the evils of the United States, whether the matters for which she criticized the United States tied to her lesson plan or not. This professor was so politically correct that students had to choose their words carefully when answering her. We quickly discovered that we had to avoid gender specificity and anything that made the culture of the United States seem better than the culture of another nation, even if the other nation was habitually cannibalistic or had leaders prone to killing their own people with nerve gas. We also had to be careful not to speak as if we viewed any people group stereotypically for any reason whatsoever.
It was mid-semester in this Orwellian class setting when the professor revealed her true self by making fun of “rednecks.” She literally laughed at how they do this or why they did that. Her arrogance cut me to the quick, for she saw herself as being above the very rules she imposed on us. While Lenin might have been proud, were he there to watch, I was certainly disgusted that “being careful not speak as if we viewed any people group stereotypically” somehow still allowed us to speak stereotypically about southern white people.
The culture all of these multiculturalists seek to impose on us is as anti-American as it is anti-free enterprise and anti-intellectual. It is a culture where we deal with our enemies from a position of weakness rather than strength. A culture where we thank our benevolent government for the few rights we are still allotted instead of pointing to a God who tells government they can come this far and no further. It is a culture where you can say whatever you want, as long as what you say is what those in charge want to hear. Sadly, it is also a culture where office holders who do not want their mismanagement of the people’s trust exposed, push for regulations like the “fairness doctrine” to be sure the exposure stops.
There are three things that can happen if the “fairness doctrine” comes back. First, the radio stations can cower in fear, drop Rush Limbaugh’s show (and so many like his, as well as all Christian broadcasting), and promise to behave from then on. Second, they can continue to carry a half-schedule of the conservative programs — “balanced” hour by hour by liberal programming — and go broke because they will not be able to find advertisers to pay for the liberals’ boring rants. Third, they can continue to carry conservative shows and refuse to add the extra liberal programming and see if the Democrats have the backbone to enforce their liberalism.
I say we take it to them without giving an inch and see what they do. It’s our First Amendment. If we don’t defend it, we don’t deserve to have it.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter