The Left's "Fairness"

From Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged, we learn of the "mind" of Al Gore and his allies on the Popular Liberation Front of "fairness":

Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.

In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked.

There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"

The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture-that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house.

A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

There is a parallel now emerging from the Left in their passionate drive for "fairness." But it is not really 'other opinion' that they wish to compel. Frankly, the Left does not care about the 'other opinion' makers, for at some point in time, those 'other' voices may revolt against their benefactors. (In this regard, see the nut-roots vs. Hilary Clinton.) There is a better way which is a long-term strategy. In reality, "fairness" is just a way-station.

What they wish to compel in the long term is the death of easily-accessible conservative opinion and the associated inconvenient facts. In order to achieve that, they must insert 'other' opinion. They know very well that radio station owners will not sustain unsuccessful programming such as the condescending, insipid, and smug oral farting of the Left. And they don't care.

Oh, yes, some Radio stations will broadcast 'left' opinion--but it will not be commercially successful. And then, Radio will find more prosperous ventures and cease broadcast of 'left' as well as 'right.' Do you think for one instant that Feinstein/Clinton/Gore, et al., will care about the death of "left" opinion on radio?

Nope.

For them, it's all or nothing, and "nothing" is a very acceptable option, given the reality of carefully cut-and-pasted "news" stories, PhotoShopped "events," etc. masquerading as "news" presented by the Acceptable People of the East and West Coasts, tailored to fit The Agenda, whatever it happens to be that week. Recall the words of GKChesterton: "It may or may not be true that man's great use for language is to conceal his thoughts; but I suppose that we should all agree to the somewhat analogous proposition that the one great use of newspapers is to suppress news."

The Left understands the maxim that "A lie is halfway around the world before Truth gets its boots on."

And they understand how Ayn Rand was successful.

Perhaps the MSM understands that they, too, can be eliminated, if they do not co-operate. After all, "disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or humanly fallible."

But I doubt that they get that, yet.

HT: McMahon