George F. Will joins the growing chorus of right-wingers who are speaking out against the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.
Reactionary liberalism, the ideology of many Democrats, holds that inconvenient rights, such as secret ballots in unionization elections, should be repealed; that existing failures, such as GM, should be preserved; and, with special perversity, that repealed mistakes, such as the “fairness doctrine,” should be repeated. That Orwellian name was designed to disguise the doctrine’s use as the government’s instrument for preventing fair competition in the broadcasting of political commentary.
Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better.
If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism’s name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.
One small problem: no one on the liberal side of the dial is advocating for the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. President-elect Obama is not in favor of it, and no one on Capitol Hill is seriously proposing that it be brought back.
It’s pretty pathetic when the right wing has to whoop up a hue and cry over a non-existent issue so that when nothing happens they can claim a victory.
We also haven’t been invaded by the Borg. I guess they can take credit for that, too.