But It's No Fair!

I am flying from Denver to Tampa today, a four hour flight with a low-budget in-flight movie and no food that doesn’t cost limbs. I brought a new book with me, The Conservative’s Handbook, to pass the time, but as I made my way through the foreword, I had to stop and promptly put it back in my carry-on. It wasn’t because the book was terrible; quite the contrary. So far, the book is incredible, and I look forward to making my way through the next 500 or so pages of it, as I anticipate it to be extremely insightful and enlightening. But I felt myself getting more and more sad as the foreword went on, because it was authored by Sean Hannity, one of my favorite TV and radio personalities of the political media realm and one of Obama’s biggest campaign enemies, and the idea that such a brilliant voice might soon be silenced had me too devastated to keep reading without first writing on the infuriating issue of the Fairness Doctrine.

First, let me say that I am all for fairness. That’s why I’m a Republican. But this proposed doctrine, despite its title, has nothing to do with fairness. This is a law that would undermine our essential liberties of free speech and free inquiry, as well as institute undue censorship, which is something I thought the liberals agreed was objectionable.

If you haven’t heard, the Fairness Doctrine is a piece of legislation first introduced in 1949 that has come in cycles of hot contestation since. The “FAIR” stands for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. It requires the address of controversial issues of public concern from contrasting, but not necessarily opposing, viewpoints. If reinstituted today, its main purpose would be to require talk radio to be divided evenly between liberal and conservative hosts, working in tandem with media-ownership caps and, if Obama gets his way, a greater portion reserved for minority ownership.

Right now, conservatives dominate AM radio, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, and numerous others all hosting highly-rated, nationally-syndicated shows. Liberals have tried in the past to start up their own shows, but no one listened to them because, frankly, they were boring. So now the liberals are whining and throwing fits about “not getting their voices heard,” and they want to pass the “Fairness” Doctrine to forbid the success of articulate Republicans and halt the flow of conservative ideas.

It is when the opposition to any idea is silenced that balance goes down the drain and a one-sided, totalitarian-style government has the opportunity to rule. We in the minority call that a regime.

But wait, Kelly, aren’t you contradicting yourself? You’re saying we have to have a balance of ideas, and the Fairness Doctrine would ensure a 50/50 split of radio time between both sides. Sounds like balance to me!

Wrong, hypothetical arguer. Maybe this would be the case if we were going to apply the rule to ALL forms of media (you know, TV, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, music, and everything else controlled 99:1 by liberals), but instead, the plan is to only apply the law to radio, which is currently the one and only medium we conservatives have to ourselves. By talking our lasts means of intra-party communication away from us, the Democrat-dominated government is trying to duct tape the mouths of those who disagree and solidify their eternal power. After all, if the conservatives can’t speak via any form of mass media, how would we ever organize en masse and revolt against our oppressors? We couldn’t. We’d be stuck.

Furthermore, the “Fairness” Doctrine completely undermines capitalism. I don’t think the government should ever really get into bed with the media, just like I don’t think it should be in cahoots with business. This is a similar function. Liberals have tried and failed to hold talk radio slots, which is no one’s fault but their own. If a mom-and-pop coffee shop closes after a Starbucks moves in across the street, that sucks, but should the government have the right to come in and divide the successful coffee shop in half, leaving one side for the failed business? And would they have to split tips at the end of the night, even though the Starbucks jar was five times as full? No. It’s ludicrous.

I’m sorry, Liberals, that the radio audience has shunned you. Maybe you should’ve tried being less monotone or something. But, even though it’s the way your party tries to do everything, you can’t have Daddy Government come out and make the mean ol’ neighbor kids let you play with them.

Grow up. And let us keep talking.

The People Speak, the Rainbow Wheel Squeaks

I was torn for a while. I’m a person who has thought through and made up her mind about almost every issue, from abortion to taxation, but I’d been on the fence about gay marriage for a long time. I couldn’t figure out which side of the argument better lined up with my political philosophies. On the one hand, I believe that people should be granted every right as long as it doesn’t begin to infringe upon the rights of others. Gay marriage, despite anyone’s moral qualms with it, has no detrimental effect on anyone outside the same-sex couple, and therefore should be allowed. But I’m also a big supporter of democracy in as pure a form as is logistically possible, and I therefore think that “majority rules” is a vital ideology for keeping people happiest and for ensuring fairness. And for the time being, the overwhelming majority of the American populace wants to keep marriage between one man and one woman, and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed.

That’s what I’ve been churning over for years. And today, as I wait for the California Supreme Court to come out with its decision on Proposition 8, I have come to a conclusion: this is not about gay marriage. This is not about human rights. This is not about Christianity or morality or the ick factor. This boils down to our essential form of government, and what the Robes of California decide on this issue will make a huge statement about what America is becoming. This ruling will show us if democracy still reigns or if we are swiftly slipping into the dangerous bounds of totalitarianism. I cannot help but ask: are We the People in charge or not?

The people of California have voted, and 52% of them supported an addition to their state Constitution affirming that marriage would only be recognized between one man and one woman. Not only would this ban same-sex marriage, it would ban polygamy, which a much bigger majority agrees on. The people have spoken. That should be the end of it. But instead, the state Supreme Court is in session, talking about whether or not they should, for a second time, disregard the voice of the citizens and do what they want. We have given one small group, just seven people, the power to throw out the decision of 6.9 million ballots. They hold the power to silence the public.

Whether or not I have made up my mind about the legalization of gay marriage is irrelevant at this point. What matters in the here and now is that the majority vote opposes it, and I’m not about to say that we should start legalizing things to please a whiny minority.

Allow me to put on my radical hat for a moment and be harsh: I don’t care what you believe. If your idea is in the minority, tough cookies. You’re going to have to wait until more people begin to side with you, and then maybe things’ll go your way. But for now? Sit tight and quit complaining. We are supposed to be a democracy, which means that the majority vote has the power. We are not functioning under Squeaky Wheel legislation here. It is not the fractional vote that gets to control what governs the whole.

Maybe in a decade or so, when the first generation of the victims of public education’s brainwashing liberalization makes up a bigger chunk of voters, gay marriage will fly. But we have to respect the rights of those who oppose just as much as we respect those of the people who favor. We cannot tantrum in the aisles of our governmental grocery store for Daddy to buy us the constitutional amendments we want for breakfast. The 47.7% of Californians who voted down Prop 8 need to pick themselves up by their Pull-Ups and understand that politics are not about appeasement or coddling or giving in to feet-stomping brats. You lost. Too bad.

I’m still unable to say definitively if I’m for or against gay marriage. My party says one thing, the libertarian side of me says another, the “theatre kid” half of me is totally confused, and my faith throws a huge monkey wrench into the whole thing. I’ll admit it: I just don’t know. But I do know I believe in democracy, and this isn’t it.

After all, the McCainiacs had 46% of the popular vote. Does that mean we get to bitch and moan until the Supreme Court kicks Obama out of office?