Why Does Anyone Care About Meghan McCain

Despite the title, I have nothing against Meghan McCain. I am sure she is a very nice person, and I'm sure she will accomplish plenty before her life is complete. Frankly, I am sure that so far she has accomplished more than me. That said, at this point, her main resume point is a very accomplished dad. That's what I was thinking as I watched her exchange pot shots with several prominent conservative thinkers. Whatever her name, there is no reason why she has any more credibility speaking about the direction and future of the Republican party than any obscure blogger anywhere. As such, there was really no reason for any prominent conservative to respond to her.

The whole affair started with this column by McCain for the Daily Beast.

It is no secret that being a Republican isn’t the most hip political stance a person can take right now. President Obama has successfully established himself as the hippest politician around. You know you’re big when Katy Perry wears a dress with your face on it to host the MTV Europe Music Awards. To my fellow Republicans: I’m sorry, I wish I could be more positive about the current “hipness” of our party. But being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond. Granted, being “hip” is not a reason to join a political party, or a reason to agree with its ideals. But it is a way to get the
attention of a generation—or, more specifically, my generation.

...

To make matters worse, certain individuals continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Republicans. Especially Republican women. Who do I feel is the biggest culprit? Ann Coulter. I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. But no matter how much you or I disagree with her, the cult that follows Coulter cannot be denied. She is a New York Times best-selling author and one of the most notable female members of the Republican Party. She was one of the headliners at the recent CPAC conference (but when your competition is a teenager who has a dream about the Republican Party and Stephen Baldwin, it’s not really saying that much).

Coulter could be the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party. And in some ways I could be the poster woman for the opposite. I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her
books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate? (I asked Ann for comment on this column, including many of the above questions, but she did not answer my request.)

It seems that for once it is Coulter that acted appropriately. Coulter hasn't even acknowledged the dig and given her history that is no easy feat. Now Ms. McCain has every right to voice her opinion. If the Daily Beast employs her, she even has every right to be paid to speak her mind. That said, she has no right to have her opinion matter. In fact, her opinion only now matters that several prominent conservative thinkers have responded to her.

There was a media back and forth that culminated with Ingraham slamming Ms. McCain's weight. McCain wound up on the View and then Ingraham responded here.




The whole thing seems beneath Ingraham. Instead of mocking McCain, she should have just ignored her. McCain thinks the Republicans should be more moderate. So be it, and if I were to respond (if I had to), I would ask what credibility she has in making any judgement about the party. Instead, folks like Ingraham attacked McCain personally.

All of this does is raise the profile of McCain. McCain doesn't deserve to have her profile raised. She hasn't yet created any sort of body of work to warrant any response. What most of the conservative establishment should have done is ignore what McCain said because she has no credibility, yet, to have her opinions mean something. Instead, this long distance food fight has turned up her profile. As such, all this has done is make her profile higher simply because she said something provocative. It gives everyone license to try and be provocative in hopes of raising their own profiles.

The Brave New World After the Fairness Doctrine

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend that Barack Obama wins the Presidency and the Democrats not only control the legislature but they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Let's also assume that they go ahead and impose again the Fairness Doctrine. First, let's review what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]

Now, let's further assume that Conservative suspicions are right and that Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein et al want to impose the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence talk radio. They want to do this because talk radio is dominated by Conservatives. So, for the most part, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to talk radio. So, what would happen?

The most immediate effect is that AM radio would get crippled. The Fairness Doctrine forces media outlets to provide equal time for both sides of a "controversial issue". The problem is that liberals like Air America have been an abject failure on talk radio. As such, station managers would struggle to find appropriate voices in order to comply with the Doctrine. Most talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham would be force off the air. Without them on their airwaves, the format would get crushed in the ratings and ultimately get marginalized.

The more interesting question is what would happen to the personalities themselves. On this issue, I believe the Fairness Doctrine would only speed up a process that I believe will occur soon enough on its own. The personalities would likely eventually move over to the internet en masse. Currently, the internet is the place where the amateurs of talk radio go to. Yet, it is the place that is absolutely perfectly suited for a mass exodus from talk radio.

The internet substitutes for syndication. Once you are on the internet, you are immediately in syndication. Furthermore, the internet allows for the personalities to combine the format of call ins with such technology as message boards, comments, and chat rooms. Most importantly, with the internet, listeners will no longer be forced to arrange their schedule to listen to their favorite personality. Internet broadcasts will also allow for income opportunities in new technologies like MP3 downloads as well.

The best part for the personalities is that almost all already have a website and most already broadcast their shows via streaming sound on the internet. The only reason that the internet hasn't taken off as mass vehicle for talk radio is perception. The internet, as a means of audio broadcast, has only been available for a few years. AM radio has been around for generations. All it would take is one personality who would see this as an opportunity to dominate a new media and the rest would immediately follow.

The ultimate irony of all of this is this. The Fairness Doctrine is the most extreme example of the government attempting to replace the free market. Yet, it would be the free market itself that would guide the players after it is imposed. The ultimate irony is that all the Fairness Doctrine would do is more quickly kill off the technology of the AM frequency. The personalities currently on it would merely adapt and follow where the free market would lead them, the internet. The Fairness Doctrine is one of those laws that the public would only really despise after its effects are felt. As such, if the Democrats then attempted to control the internet, they would roundly be rejected by the public after they had seen what it did to AM. As such, don't fear for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. They will adapt to anything the politicians throw at them.