Posted by
Patrick Henry on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:38:55 PM
To the great surprise of many conservatives, two major news outlets reported today that President Barack Obama opposes reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine." That, after Obama cronies David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs left the door wide open for it during weekend interviews. But perhaps it should not come as the surprise it seems at first blush.
If Obama's approval rating was in the 30% range and he seemed vulnerable to direct attack, he might feel differently. While some Democrats who ARE vulnerable may feel the need of cover, Obama doesn't.
No president wants to get spanked by the Supreme Court early in his first term. Should the FCC arbitrarily reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, or congress pass a bill approving it, media outlets and conservative organizations would be filing lawsuits alleging its unconstitutionality before the ink was dry on the order or legislation. Given the doctrine's shaky history in the legal system and the current balance of the Supreme Court, re-imposition of the doctrine would likely be an exercise in futility in which the Democrats (and Obama if he supported them) would end up with the whole henhouse of egg on their face. Obama's winning everywhere else, so why ride a loser?
Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar. Without making a judgment on that, even having read and considered the constitution he will know that government's role is to defend and protect free speech, not to stifle, control or ration it. He wants to choose his fights, and supporting an idea so blatantly unconstitutional would only weaken his claim to know and support the constitution itself.
Robert Ruder, formerly of the JFK administration, has admitted publicly that at the time the Fairness Doctrine was principally used to stifle dissent. Obama, who seems to slavishly follow Saul Alinsky's playbook, knows that rule #12 for radicals is that if you push a negative too hard, it becomes a positive. Attack somebody outlandishly enough, and you'll generate public sympathy for the underdoog. The last thing Obama and the Left need right now is to make Rush Limbaugh into a martyr, which is what reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would effectively do.
Enforcement of the doctrine would be harder than controlling illegal immigration. It has been rumored that Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to expand the doctrine to cover the internet. If that is done it will also have to include television, and if all public trusts and publicly funded or licensed entities are included it will have to include colleges and universities, bastions of liberal bile. Can you imagine MSNBC forcing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to have the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallagher on their shows with equal time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and this sword will certainly cut both ways with conservatives besieging liberal outlets for equal time.
There is an alternative. Leftist organizations like MoveOn.org could spawn a radio show of their own, or even a whole station, filling the airwaves with pinko horse hockey. Not to worry, however. It is unlikely to happen because radio and television are businesses. They run what sponsors will pay for and what listeners will tune in to hear. The sad failing of liberal propaganda is that not enough people want to hear it to keep it alive for even a week. It won't survive because it is crap-a-rama, and listeners will tune out by the millions. So as much as Senator Debbie "Conflivt of Interest" Stabenow, Senator "Terrible" Tom Harkin and Representative "Hinky" Hinchey babble about holding hearings and reinstating the F.D., it is all sound and fury signifying nothing. It might pass the House, but would die a slow, ugly death in the Senate, and if Obama orders the FCC to bring it back, the ensuing court battle will leave the Democratic party and its popular president as bloodied and battered losers. You have to hand it to the president on this one: his mama didn't raise any political dummies.