The Fairness Doctrine.

Within the months leading up to the presidential election, it was virtually impossible to tune into Far Right talk radio without hearing one or another of the interchangeable voices bemoan the possibility of the re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine. These hyperventilating hacks have every reason to fear the possibility that such rules will be brought back. The extremely narrow perspective that emanates from the public airwaves threatens to poison the political dialog in our nation permanently. How did the AM/FM bands reach such a state? It was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (as well as the deregulation of the radio broadcast industry) during the Reagan years that created the current climate.

The original policy (created in 1949) was an attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to require all parties with a broadcast license to present controversial social and political issues in an honest, equitable, and balanced manner. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the FCC's power to regulate access to any media wherein channels are "limited". However, our federal Judicial Branch has not required the FCC to do so. In 1974, that ruling board seemed content to pronounce that licensees were voluntarily following the spirit of the rules, and thus had no need to intervene. But it left the door open to act on the policy in the future.

It was FCC Chairman and Reagan-Appointee Mark Fowler that announced in 1985 his intention to repeal parts of the Doctrine, saying that it violated the Free Speech guarantees of the 1st Amendment. In 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Congress had attempted to block such a move with its own legislation, but The Gipper vetoed the bill. However two provisions of the Doctrine remained in place until 2000*- the "personal attack rule" and the "political editorial rule". The first mandated that an individual or small group under attack on a licensed radio station be notified in writing by the broadcaster, sent a transcript of the attack, and have the opportunity to reply for free on that same station. The second rule said that whenever a broadcaster made a political endorsement, the opposing candidate was to be notified and offered a chance to respond.

President-Elect Barack Obama is on record as saying he does not support the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but he does favor media-ownership caps and network neutrality. Yet there have been several key Democratic figures who have called for the re-imposition of The Fairness Doctrine. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D- NM) told a conservative radio host that "for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In addition House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen Richard Durban (D-IL) and Sen. John Kerry have all embraced the idea of bringing the Doctrine back.

For the last two decades, Rush Limbaugh, and his many clones that dominate our airwaves, have grown increasingly bolder in their vilification of opponents. A constant stream of extremist Right Wing propaganda is offered (free-of-charge) 24-7 throughout the frequency range of radio.
In many areas (such as Western Pennsylvania) there is no alternative voice available. Huge conglomerates like Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting have used the powers of monopoly to keep competitors outside of the market. The costs of setting up an operation to rival the corporate media giants are prohibitive. Nutty "conservative" programming runs rough-shod over a vulnerable segment of the populace that is more than willing to accept the lies on offer. Something needs to change, and the "Commons" of the air restored to The People.

* As Wikipedia states, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000."

The Failures of the Fourth Estate.

Isn't it usually the case that a few 'bad apples' ruin everything for the rest of us? I'd be happy to let 'the marketplace' set the terms and limits on a particular service or good if so many folks didn't use the concept as a facade behind which they happily continue their dirty dealings. Unfortunately there is just too much wrong being committed by people who are beyond the reach of public accountability. The system is set up to reward those who have the money to buy off our politicians, and I fear that substantial change is just about impossible. All we can do, as concerned citizens, is continue to shine the light and draw attention to the worst of the ne'er-do-wells. The fact of the matter is that humanity has not proven its ability to act in its own enlightened self-interest.

I would be a greater champion of unfettered freedom if it didn't necessarily mean membership in a group that boils every problem down to decreasing taxes. Too much of that club is only interested in short-term profits. They have no concern for the larger issues, and will do everything they can to avoid having to confront them- especially if it entails any form of personal cost. Others' problems are simply not their own. Their participation in the affairs of their fellow citizens is limited to curtailing social liberties- such as sex, drugs, and access to birth control. I'm not even convinced that they genuinely care about those issues. They just use these divisively to promote their own not-so-secret agenda... unregulated profit.

Witness the political 'Right' and their concept of 'fair and balanced'. They have seized the airwaves using a strategy mixing rabid nationalism, cultural jingoism, hate-mongering, deception and obfuscation. They've assumed command of the great symbols of US hegemony- the dollar, the cross, and the flag. Alternate voices are not being programmed or supported by the corporations that own the media. Unconstrained self-interest is not only encouraged, but demanded. The messenger is embraced only as long as the message is to consume indiscriminately. The Fairness Doctrine, which served the public by protecting them from an unchallenged stream of pro-corporate values, was repealed by Ronald Reagan and his rogue F.C.C. in 1987.

Nowadays Reagan's dismal record as president has been rehabilitated by the deregulation forces that fight to maintain a nation dominated by unchallenged corporate interests. We are subjected to crassly sentimentalized versions of 'The Gipper" on network television. Meanwhile a distinguished war veteran like John Kerry was sabotaged in his presidential campaign by Sinclair Broadcasting, which attempted to force its 62 television stations to air 'Swift-Boater' propaganda in the guise of a 'documentary'. Ironically, such blatant attempts to subvert democracy with lies are hypocritically overlooked by the countless conservative pundits who decry the 'liberal bias' of the media. Unfortunately there's hardly anyone left behind the pulpit to challenge such a ridiculous assertion.

Thank God the Internet exists to provide the opportunity for true democratic participation. There used to be a time when various outlets offered a wide range of political opinion. Nowadays even CNN is forced to hire hacks like Glenn Beck and Tony Snow. These guys don't offer any alternative to FOX or the networks... they ARE the establishment. The only 'progressive' broadcasters are Pacifica and Democracy Now. Try tuning into those grassroots sources in Western Pennsylvania. If you live within a-mile-and-a-half of Carnegie Mellon University, then you are welcome to. Otherwise don't bother looking, because you will only get more frustrated.

The National Debt.

Today I heard that the national debt of the United States is 9 trillion dollars. That's an almost inconceivable sum. When I was a kid I remember learning in class that my country owed one trillion bucks to investors, many of whom were foreigners. People were somewhat concerned about that fact back then. However Ronald Reagan was president, and he seemed to be able to hypnotize a large proportion of the population into thinking that he could do no wrong. As he wasted astronomical sums on worthless "defense" projects, he was somehow able to convince folks that he heralded a "new morning" in America. Little did they know how much Reagan had progressed as an actor since his early days of red-baiting and starring in movies opposite a monkey named "Bonzo". It's been a long day of senseless spending since then, with a break of only a few short hours during the Clinton presidency of the 90's. Still the Right insists on worshiping the "Gipper" as a saint.

What's especially ironic about all of this is the old chestnut that's continuously repeated by the GOP about Democrats- that they are irresponsible spenders. You can hear this on any given day by tuning into talk radio. You'd think that the spin doctors on the left could have reversed this perception by now. Unfortunately they don't seem as willing as their counterparts in the GOP to play hardball politics. For some reason they stare dumbly at the accusations that they are spending all our tax dollars on welfare programs. This despite the fact that they'd given up their "War on Poverty" when LBJ decided not to run for a second term. There is no class war in society. If there were, then the Left would have done something about Republican proposals to channel the short-lived budget surpluses of the 90's directly into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

I'm willing to give the first Bush some credit for raising taxes despite promising his constituency that he wouldn't. Of course he took a serious beating for his breach in loyalty. He is still excoriated by many "conservatives" for having done so. Anyway it helped pave the way for Bill Clinton to finally balance the budget. It's almost surreal, but it's true. As recently as a decade ago we were having discussions about what to do with this new windfall of cash. Everyone was trying to seize the credit for the "bipartisan" legislation that put us in the black, yet they weren't too distracted to make plans to grab some of that money for their respective supporters. The Dems suggested that it be used to shore up the Social Security balance, while the Republicans started promising tax cuts.

In my view the only appropriate thing to have done with any surplus was to start chipping away at the national debt. But Congress was controlled by a group of Republicans who were still smarting over the betrayals of George H. W. Bush, and they wanted corporate and investment tax relief immediately. George Dubya Bush was able to weasel his way into the executive office by promising rebates of $300 for working class stiffs, and tens of thousands for his wealthy buddies. Little did anyone expect that he would go on to sink 600 million dollars into an amorphous "War on Terrorism". Certainly no one could have possibly anticipated that all that money would only lead to a situation of increased threat. After investing scads of cash into a six-year occupation, all we have to show for it is a seemingly permanent Al Qaeda branch in Iraq. This week the regional terrorist commander announced his intentions to use his growing presence in Iraq as a staging area for direct attacks on Jerusalem.

Meanwhile back home, our "decider-in-chief" has proposed a 3 trillion dollar federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Where are the "fiscal conservatives" I hear so much about? We've gotten to the point that each and every American citizen owes over $30,000 as his/her personal share of the national debt. And this includes my new born son. How long do you think it takes a middle class worker to save up $30,000? If we take into account the huge sums that the average citizen needs to pay to bring his/her own finances in to the black, then the situation is indeed dire. This is our modern consumerist capitalist mentality. Perpetual spending is supposed to equal perpetual growth. Our "economic experts" are so fixated in attacking socialist concepts that they have blinded themselves to the tragic flaws in their own thinking. It's become quite clear that all the old models have proved themselves unsustainable and obsolete. Yet people are so obsessed with getting in on the scam that nothing is being done to challenge the prevailing perceptions.

What they do in the name of God.

If there is one thing that has become eminently clear during the last several decades of American politics, it is that there is a lot of traction to be gained by appealing to the Christian population of the nation. There used to be a tradition of attempting to keep religion and politics separate in the United States. Preachers and ministers once preferred to keep "worldly affairs" out of the houses of God. But after the confusion and disillusionment of the Watergate Era, society was aching for some moral clarity. A born-again peanut farmer was the surprising beneficiary of that change, and a new lesson was learned in the corridors of state power. Ronald Reagan discovered quickly that there was a large segment of the populace searching for linguistic cues indicating the presence of faith. His speech-writers carefully crafted his addresses to deliver the message.

George H. W. Bush stepped back from his predecessor's example, deciding instead to convey the image of a competent bureaucrat rather than a true believer. However his son (who desperately needed something to do that didn't involve drugs and alcohol) was tagged with the mission of connecting to the growing evangelical movement. Leaving this task up to his hapless offspring exposed the lack of importance Bush Sr. attributed to this demographic. He paid the price for that oversight during his re-election bid. His successor (Bill Clinton) conveyed the image that he was a God-faring Southerner and managed to sustain that impression until the GOP leadership got wise and attacked him as a spiritual hypocrite. The lines were drawn in an accelerated culture war that continues to this day.

When the younger Bush ran for the presidency, he set the tone for his campaign by trying to sell himself as a "compassionate conservative". It didn't matter that he had put to death more men and women than any governor in history. Nor did people care that he was mainly concerned with corporate interests and the burgeoning oil and weapons industries. What counted were his constant references to God. He employed veiled language that intentionally spoke to Millenarian Christians. He claimed that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. After 9-11 he kicked the strategy into full gear. He talked of his revelation that God had chosen him to fight a holy war against evil-doers. When he sent troops to the Middle East to invade Iraq he asked the troops to pray for him. He never missed a chance to align himself with divinity.

A new political constituency has arisen in our times. The Christian Right (led by men like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer) continues to cultivate its influence with Republican leaders. They have formed a holy (?) alliance with Neocons and free market radicals. Together this coalition has been capable of turning out numbers that have made it possible to fix national elections. As long as they march in lock-step accord they can have a substantial influence on the political agenda of our government. In unity, they must be taken seriously by every politician across the land. But what exactly do they have in common? Many observers have suspected for years that each one of the subgroups making up this coalition has a different set of ultimate goals.

Where is the Christian feeling in a never-ending war for the control of resources? What about the flagrant disregard for the more unfortunate among us? Is stewardship of the Earth part of the mandate that God bestowed upon Man? While fiscal conservatives may give lip service to the "protection of the sanctity of marriage" and the "pro-life" cause, what is their true agenda? There's been an almost invisible fissure slowly widening into a great schism for years. The vast disagreements among what used to be indivisible elements within a conservative front are becoming self-evident to every member of the GOP. Meanwhile Democrats like Barack Obama are starting to appropriate the revivalist-tinged stylings that have been the sole province of Christian Evangelicals for years.

We are entering unsettling times that foretell a struggle for the definitions of hope, morality and care. Who among our politicians has the right to invoke the name(s) of God(s)? Is the profession of faith sufficient in itself, or are "good works" necessary for true spirituality? For a long time now the Republicans have appropriated for themselves a trio of potent symbols- the cross, the dollar and the flag. Is it possible that the Democrats could wrest at least one of these from the hands of a dying party? Or are the terms of this war already set in stone?

Obama's outbreak of "foot-in-mouth" disease.

I'll freely admit that I was taken aback by the recent comments that Barack Obama made about former president Ronald Reagan. I came home from wherever I was, only to have M. tell me that the presidential candidate praised the Republican icon. Naturally I wondered what he had actually said, and what type of spin the media was putting on his comments. The idea that a Democrat seeking the nomination for the nation's highest office would speak positively about Reagan goes against virtually everything I know about modern party politics. Has the reputation of the most egregious labor-hater in American history been rehabilitated?

What did Obama really say about Mr. Reagan?

"Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

While I agree that Reagan "changed the trajectory of America", I wouldn't say that the fact works to his credit. It is true that with the help of tax cuts, he put more money back into the hands of the wealthiest Americans than virtually any federal executive in our history. This was part of his "trickle-down theory"- give money to the rich and it will eventually find its way into the hands of the poor. Of course that turned out to be a scam. Reagan presided over two of the very worst recessions in American history. Ironically, it was Dubya's pappy himself who branded this economic theory "Voodoo Economics" during the 1980 presidential campaign. He knew that a generation later we would still be confronting a national debt accelerated by these ideas.

Reagan oversaw some of the largest spending increases ever. Many conservative pundits insist that their hero was responsible for crushing "The Evil Empire". But the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapsing under its own bloated self-importance and corruption when Reagan first entered office. We would have seen Gorbachev and glastnost even if Ralph Nadar had been president. The reality is that "the Gipper" continued a reactionary campaign of trying to out-spend the Russians in the arms race. Despite the fact that the "Reds" has ceased to be any threat to the West, Reagan authorized the expenditure of ridiculous sums of taxpayer dollars in pursuit of building pie-in-the-sky weapons systems such as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or "Star Wars"). The idea behind that program was that we could have a protective umbrella over the nation that would shield us from a barrage of nuclear missiles. It was thought that the capability would enable us to launch a first strike nuclear war.

The association Obama makes between Clinton and Nixon is simple and dirty politics. He's aware that Hillary is for all-intents-and-purposes running on the record of her husband. It is not at all clear that Mrs. Clinton will have the same priorities and agenda almost a decade later, but that seems to be the prevailing assumption. By attacking Bill's record, Hillary's opponents smear her. It's a page taken out of the tired play-book of the GOP, but the Obama camp is not above appropriating such tactics. It should be noted that if Nixon were a major player in today's political scene, he would be branded more liberal than Obama and/or both Clintons.

Obama did go on to say the following, which should illuminate his true intentions regarding his evocation of Reagan:

"We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Yes, it's true... for a long time the GOP was in the minority. Until Reagan came along with his "Morning in America" bullshit, the Democrats had dominated the federal government for decades. Ronnie managed to bring together a broad coalition of fiscal and social conservatives. Make no mistake- George W. Bush was the apotheosis of that movement. The moment of happy partnership between seemingly disparate constituencies is now past. The experiment is commonly recognized as being a failure, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh and other hacks claim. Obama appears to be asking the media and the American public about what comes next. He is attempting to position himself as the new figure of hope- an approximation of what Ronald Reagan once symbolized to a large segment of the citizenry.

It would be a significant error to believe that Obama has any kinship with Reagan when it comes to political philosophy or beliefs. They are almost diametrically opposed. If his commentary on Reagan's import sways a few in the middle, then Obama could muster the support to overtake Hillary. I'm sure his words were welcome in California, a state with a sizable proportion of citizens who consider former Governor sacred. A little decoding is in order for the rest of us, who despise Reagan as the scourge of the late Twentieth Century.