It’s usually conservatives that— for the most part, unfairly— get pegged as being narrow-minded. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to think of themselves as “expansive” and “inclusive” in their outlook. But when it comes to this notion of the Fairness Doctrine, it’s the liberals who have dramatically narrowed their focus. They talk about protecting the “public” airwaves from unbridled bias and political demagoguery. But, curiously, they have targeted only a small sector of the radio spectrum, specifically that sector defined by the range of 535 kHz to 1605 kHz which just happens to coincide with what we call AM radio.

Here’s the rub. For whatever the reasons, conservatives kick butt in AM Radio Land. They rule. Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo notwithstanding, upon take off Air America (liberals' answer to Rush Limbaugh) stupendously crash-landed. Of all the forms of broadcasting, AM radio is probably the most populist. No glitzy imagery, no zinging graphics, no “cerebral” chattering class, no pretty-boy anchorman spoon-feeding you tasty, easily digestible nuggets of  politically correct “news”. Just regular Joes engaging in real conversations—sometimes friendly, sometimes not— on a wide range of topics that matter to ordinary people.

You’d think this situation would be looked upon as healthy. After all, even though conservatives are in the driver’s seat, plenty of pissed off liberals are constantly calling in to the talk radio shows to do battle. I thought the free exchange of ideas was a good thing for democracy. Not according to Senators Stabenow, Harkin, Schumer and McCaskill to name but a few. Even Bill “Bubba” Clinton has weighed in, agreeing that “balance” (as defined by Democrats) must be mandated by government bureaucrats. The Bolsheviks shared those same concerns and strived to enforce their own brand of “fairness” (also sometimes referred to as “the Party line”).

But what about the rest of the radio wave spectrum? What about TV broadcasting? To be genuinely fair, shouldn’t we apply the Fairness Doctrine to PBS, the major networks and all the cable stations? Let every Katie Couric utterance be balanced by Sean Hannity—just to be fair.  Imagine a Meet The Press roundtable forum with two liberals and two conservatives instead of the usual lynch mob (with the occasional token Republican tossed in once in a great while).

What about ensuring balance and fairness in the realm of private mobile phone conversations? While on your cell phone, if you happen to opine, shouldn’t your friend on the line be required immediately to hear a countervailing view point? How about satellite communications? If the NSA breaks China's cryptic code, discovering a nuclear attack on California is imminent, shouldn't we first hear out other points of view? If SETI ever does someday receive a transmission from outer space, shouldn’t every galactic civilization out there have the right to make a rebuttal in the interest of fairness and balance?

And, while we’re at it, let’s not limit the Fairness Doctrine to airwaves and broadband. Let’s extend it to college campuses and university faculties. Let’s apply the doctrine to print media (while they’re still around). How about award shows? Fairness demands that if the bloated bloviator, Michael Moore, is allowed to spew his nonsense at the Academy Awards ceremony, then let someone else, maybe Dennis Miller, have equal time. (Of course, the downside would be making this pompous and excruciatingly long self-love fest even longer and more tedious.)

To be really generous, let’s extend the Fairness Doctrine to LIFE itself. After all, it’s so inherently and decidedly unfair. This, in fact, has been one of the lofty (and delusional) goals of the Progressive Left all along.

The problem is this: there is an implicit contradiction between freedom and equality. Pure, unadulterated “freedom” describes anarchy; and there’d hardly be equality in such a dog-eat-dog society. Abstract “perfect” equality and fairness might please egghead academics but would amount to a stultifying sameness where the gifted and exceptional would no longer be free to transcend the gravitational pull of the lowest common denominator. As Americans we strive for both freedom and equality, but there will always be tension between the two. Genuine “fairness”— an ideal never to be perfectly achieved in this world— is something messy and organic (like Life itself) that grows out of the natural order of things, out of the billions of interactions between free people. It’s not something that can be synthesized in a government laboratory. Well, maybe it could be synthesized— at great expense. But the end result would be something artificial and monstrous. Call it what you like, but, to be fair, it wouldn’t be fair.