You Know What Could Really Save the GOP Right About Now? Taking a Valiant and Aggressive Stance on a Total Non-Issue (or, Wither Good Faith?)

From Matt Yglasias, on Nov. 8th:

Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio? I understand why they oppose that move, but why are they putting so much energy into blocking something that nobody is trying to do. A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference. Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act. And speaking as a paid-up member of the vast left-wing conspiracy, nobody on our side is getting any marching orders about this.

Keeping this in mind, let's deconstruct how a right wing talking point bounces around the echo chamber which is the Cheddarsphere:

This morning, Patrick McIlheran's column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel focused on a matter of life and death: the fairness doctrine. McIlheran columns generally find their roots in essays and/or articles published by elite East Coast conservative publications (like NRO or the Weekly Standard) several weeks prior to his own spin. Today's is no different. He cites Brian C. Anderson, an editor at the wonderful conservative periodical published by the Manhattan Institute, City Journal:

Obama, nominally, has forsworn the old Fairness Doctrine, in which any broadcast opinion could be permitted only with equal time for opposing views. Other Democrats haven't. "This has sort of been circulating at the top levels of the party for some time," said Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal and co-author of a new book, "A Manifesto for Media Freedom." Top congressional Democrats have favored such rules. If they pass them, would Obama veto? Anderson thinks not.

I don't know how Anderson came to McIlheran's attention, but Anderson did author an op-ed in the New York Post regarding on the Fairness Doctrine on Oct. 20th. Anderson's own words aren't all that much different as they are presented through McIlheran:

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

(If this sounds familiar its because its essentially the exact same logical formation of the paragraph cited above in McIlheran's column.)

Now here's what I find astonishing: although both Anderson and McIlheran concede that Barack Obama is publicly on the record as not supporting the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, both author's simply refuse to take him at his word.

Here's the policy position as it was outlined in January in Broadcasting and Cable:

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"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," Ortiz added.

That's about as clear a policy position as anyone is every going to get from someone working in Washington. Do you support X? No. End of story.

But, of course, it's not the end of the story -- not so far as Anderson and McIlheran are concerned. Instead of just accepting Obama's position -- a position both gentlemen agree with -- both men seem the astonishing: absent any evidence to back up their claim -- and contrary to the very official statement released by the campaign, they promote the idea that Obama does, in fact, support the fairness doctrine.

This breach of good faith argumentation genuinely makes my head ache.

Where are the secret memos advising legislators to unleash the Fairness Doctrine bills in the next congress? What about the discretely recorded speeches at fund-raisers with Obama telling liberal contributors that the first thing he's going to do is shut down Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his ilk? Were are the college classmates who remember Obama arguing passionately in his Intro to Comm Law class for the reinstatement of the Doctrine?

Anderson's article, which McIlheran merely appropriates, offers absolutely no evidence to support his claim that Obama actually support the Fairness doctrine. Instead, Anderson glosses over what the broadcasting industry would look like if it were reinstated. No substance, but plenty of tangentially related speculation.

Absent any empirical evidence to the contrary, the only thing we have to go on is Obama's word, which neither Anderson nor McIlheran seem satisfied with, which might strike some as odd since Obama's position is also Anderson and McIlerhan's position!

I think we all know why this is the case: it's better to be on the offensive -- and to smite one's enemies -- than to expend valuable column inches on defending, justifying, or admonishing one's colleagues with regards to the phenomenal failure the party and ideology has been during the last eight years.

That would take a degree of intellectual courage that McIlheran frankly doesn't have the balls for.

Those are the first two layers of this echo. The third comes via Charlie Sykes, who has a vested interest in both following any and every blips on the Fairness Doctrine radar. Sykes doesn't add a goddamn thing to the conversation -- because, God forbid, he should do something on his blog other than just cut and paste another author's material -- but he does pass on the story to folks like Mary Eden who are now discussing the Fairness Doctrine in her own terms:

I find this murmuring about reenacting some incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine and creating advisory boards to sit in judgment to determine what should or should not be allowed on the air to be truly alarming. Putting such policies in place would clearly be an affront to civil liberties.

There are no murmurs "about reenacting some incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine and creating advisory boards" -- this is simply speculation by people who don't support the Doctrine to begin with. Again, let's go back to Obama's position on the FD:

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"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," Ortiz added.

I don't see a goddamn thing about advisory boards or incarnations or any of the nonsense Mary's trying to pass off. It's simply not there, which is perhaps to be expected from such a knee-jerk ideologue.

(Really, you're going to criticize the guy for not repealing the Bush tax cuts immediately? Is it no longer opportune to call the guy a socialist any more? Now he was just lying about being a socialist? Run with that one, Mary -- by all means. I'm sure it will go over real well ...)

There are dozens of more important things to worry about at this moment: the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- hell, piracy in Somalia is an order magnitude of more importance than the Fairness Doctrine in my book. It's an anachronism that has no prayer of seeing the light of legislative day ever again -- and, if by some freak occurrence it somehow did, some legislator would be smart enough to tie net neutrality to any proposed legislation thus making it a package that neither the left nor the right would want to touch.

So, please Mssrs. Sykes, McIlheran, Anderson and Ms. Eden -- by all means, zealously fight for a topic most people don't care all that much about -- the adults will take care of the real problems.