The country appears ready to reward a Democratic Congress with record-low approval ratings with a landslide that could alter the course of our country for years to come.
On the one hand, Im sort of glad to see the Democrats take control. The Republicans (with few exceptions) were admittedly awful during the years they controlled Congress and the presidency. And while the Democrats will no doubt embark on a full-speed sprint toward bringing our country to ruin, rather than the slower-but-steady jog of recent Republicans, at least the Democrats will be the ones responsible.
Sometimes our country just has to get real good and disgusted with liberalism before returning to its senses (after Jimmy Carter, for example). The Republicans deserved their spanking in the 2006 midterm elections, and they probably deserve to be punished again this election for their irresponsible governance. But the country doesnt deserve to be punished with a filibuster-proof Senate, a lopsided House and a presidency which all have a far-left agenda.
If two years of Democratic control of government would spark another national conservative movement, it would almost be worth it. But Im very concerned about some of the strong-armed tactics the Democrats will enact to hold on to the power they crave if they get large enough majorities.
Theyll grant Congressional representation to Washington, D.C., one of the most corrupt, crime-ridden and liberal (but I repeat myself) cities in America, guaranteeing them even stronger majorities. Theyll expand voting privileges to felons, a segment of societys best and brightest, who overwhelmingly support Democrats.
But their most nefarious scheme should be a cause for tremendous concern for all lovers of freedom. Its an unjustifiable assault on First Amendment rights, intended to silence dissent. It goes by the innocuous name, "The Fairness Doctrine." Who, after all, could be against "fairness"?
The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that ruled the airwaves from 1949 until it was ended by the Reagan administration. It stipulated that broadcasting stations must allow equal time for opposing political views. In other words, if a radio station aired a controversial opinion, it would have to allow equal time for any whiners that demanded equal time for a rebuttal. Most station managers didnt want to take the legal risks associated with airing controversial views. So they resorted to safe but boring programming, such as shows on gardening or (even worse) sports.
But once the regulation was lifted, A.M. radio was revived, allowing for enormously popular political commentators. Thats the wonderful thing about free markets and the free exchange of ideas; they ignite innovation, creativity and even wealth in a way that highly regulated systems never can. But to the anger of the left, which cannot stand any threat to its power, talk radio is dominated by conservatives.
Liberals, including prominent members of the Democratic leadership, would like nothing more than to enact a legislative version of the Fairness Doctrine. The implications would be far-reaching and enormously dangerous, and all you independent voters who think its about time for some change should give this some serious thought before going to the polls.