Lance Fairchok

Radio & Freedom: Socialism's Totalitarian
March 18, 2009
 

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the heart of what it means to be American lay two freedoms that set us apart from the world; the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Both are sacrosanct in the minds of most Americans, guaranteed us by the genius of founders that understood both human nature and the nature of governments. The argument that “modern times require a modern constitution” has not held much water outside of the echo chamber of academia and “living document” tinkers, and does not get much traction with the public. Americans know where our success comes from, by adhering to the proven institutions of our unique system of government. We have adhered to Democratic principles more consistently than any other nation; they permeate all civic discourse and form the roots of our Constitutional Republic. They have empowered our citizens and made us, for now, a dominant world power. At a fundamental level we understand that you don’t fix what isn’t broken.

But that is rapidly changing. The fierce independence that once typified the label “American” has been watered down over the decades by the very people who now hold power in Washington. True freedom, the freedom to succeed or fail on your own merits without interference or coercion of government is being given away piecemeal, succumbing to the growing expectation that the government will provide for welfare, prosperity and health of the citizen, that America is a government with citizens, not citizens with a government. The independent spirit survives, but barely.

The freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment are being attacked indirectly, with tactics designed to chip away at public perceptions, desensitizing and diluting the public confidence in the constitution and the nation’s foundational principles. The founder’s language, so clear and unequivocal is being cleverly redefined and reinterpreted and “re-contextualized.” Over time the hope is that debate will not be necessary, that there will be consensus, that they will have convinced the citizens that their alterations are sensible and necessary. This is how the strength inherent to our nation is weakened, not by the contest of ideas in the open forum of public debate, but by subterfuge.

The Democrats have learned well what issues are losers for them, and having morphed into the socialist party they eagerly work to limit the freedoms Americans take for granted with an ever tightening noose of clever words and legislative sleight of hand. The freedoms most distasteful to them are those they cannot control and those that threaten their ascendancy, the freedoms that encourage individual responsibility, achievement and citizen action are incompatible with the poorly defined utopia that motivates and inspires them. These Socialist elites posses the monumental arrogance to believe they can do better than those first American visionaries, but they are not visionaries; they are the quintessential contrarians, the force of entropy and decay and failure.

In Congress and on the chattering talk show circuit Democrats are manipulating issues of importance to them, not the people. They frequently mention the “Fairness Doctrine” a non-constitutional a piece of legislative trickery disguised as an ethical establishment of “fairness.” In application it will be used to mute and silence radio voices that are too effective in unraveling their schemes and manipulations, voices that disagree and denounce and reveal the truth. It was effective for years until ruled unconstitutional during the Reagan administration. We get some insight into its real purpose from an old interview with a member of the Johnson administration:

“Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Bill Ruder, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Johnson, quoted by former CBS President Fred Friendly in his 1976 book, The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment

Things haven’t changed much. We can expect the socialists to invent new requirements to slip their “fairness” into the airways, like localism, diversity or network neutrality and a hundred others. They are skilled at confusing issues, distracting the public, and obscuring the true purpose their legislation. Of course leftist and liberal outlets in the Media are assumed to be by their very nature to be fair. It is only the conservatives that are not, and the small percentage of conservative opinion in the total of the media, usually found on talk radio, is too much, as would be any conservative opinion.  Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) equates conservative commentary to “pornography.”

 “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

The Fairness Doctrine reveals the impulse to control the information the public hears, to remove any focal point of resistance or dissent, to gently, at first, take the right to hold contrary opinions because they are “petty” or “not helpful,” to use specious moral arguments to have the American people hand their freedom over willingly.

Despite what may appear as encouraging words from President Obama on the issue, we should remember how seriously he takes any of his promises, like Machiavelli’s Prince, not very.  Last year Obama’s press secretary said: "Sen. Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." Catch the code words? “Opening up the airwaves to as many diverse viewpoints as possible” means something is coming. We can expect the effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or some other legislation renamed with clever language and less obvious baggage to begin very soon. The party spokespersons are preparing the public.

"With the future of the country hanging in the balance, we shouldn't be playing petty politics or just going for entertainment," Former President Clinton said. "What I think we need to do is have more balance in the programs, or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions."

What is conservative comment but countervailing opinion? The mainstream is decidedly left. How stupid does President Clinton think the American people are? Pretty damn stupid, after all, we voted in a President who has nothing to qualify him, no achievement, no legacy, no history of conviction and action, just a nice speaking voice. It is a safe bet that our former president despises Obama, whose solid socialist upbringing, communist mentors and radical friends, make him the uber-darling of the left. But Bill Clinton knows which way the wind blows and he keeps his eye on the prize.

In Clinton’s world of double-speak and falsehood, it is perfectly fine to call for censorship by calling it “impartiality,” and then call on the citizens better nature to rise above “petty politics” even while he is neck deep in those politics. He has remarkable ability to lie and a hell of allot of brass. He is motivated by the same totalitarian impulse that pushes all socialists to embrace the suppression of dissent as a moral imperative. Sal Alinsky, the Marxist community organizer instructed his acolytes: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.” Obama is a master of using moral justifications to excuse immoral action.

As Democrat members of congress and socialist talking heads increase the chatter about the Fairness Doctrine they will try to convince use that in the 233 years since the First Amendment was written we have moved so far ahead in the field of social science that we can more “justly” define “appropriate” and “inappropriate” speech. They will ask “enlightened’ press venues to “self-diversify” and “embrace the community.” The buzz words of “fairness” and “community” and “equality” are simply the sweet wine into which they pour their poison.