Scott W. Graves

In the political arena, it is very common to hear extremist rhetoric used to describe the opposing party. However, with three months under our belts since a grueling national campaign, I am a little surprised by how much “socialist” language is still spilling into the mainstream media when describing the current administration. I thought both the media and the American public were going to give the administration more of a chance. I thought the administration and the Democrats would use their new found political capital more wisely.

Fortunately, the talk of “nationalizing” banks, policies mandating “reasonable” executive compensation, effort to re-introduce government health care, and the passage of a “stimulus package” which allocates ungodly amounts of taxpayer money on pork projects serve to reinforce the notion that the Democrats generally gravitate to big government socialism. This is obvious to well-informed conservatives. It is beginning to become more clear to the average American.

It is with this political backdrop that I eagerly await the forthcoming eruption when Democrats subversively re-introduce the failed “Fairness Doctrine“.

For those unfamiliar with this black mark on American history, the “Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”

To most Americans, this flies directly in the face of their limited understanding of the First Amendment which very simply states,

“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.”

No amount of nuanced, smooth-talking, feel-good Clintonesque language from the Messiah himself will veil the fact that Democrats would be trying to use their power to squash free speech; specifically, the free speech of the political right who has has dominated the airwaves of talk radio for nearly 20 years. I believe any attempt to establish government oversight of political free speech and commentary could serve as a tipping point that severely damages the Democrat brand and quickly removes them from power. I relish the debate and would welcome an historic groundswell of revolutionary-style opposition.

This issue was the topic of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rush Limbaugh. As the most successful and dominating figure in talk radio, his conservative views are ground zero for any legislation that directly or otherwise attempts to re-introduce the failed big government policies embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.

Let the debate (and the revolution) begin!

Excerpt:

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

By Rush Limbaugh
February 20, 2009

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Click here to read the article on the WSJ website.