In a strange turn of events, Rush Limbaugh has published an even-handed--even reasonable--argument against the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine on the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

While many people are unaware of the law, as Reagan ousted it in the early 1980's, it's recent return is pretty simply explained. Liberal policymakers and advocates aren't happy about the fact that talk radio is universally dominated by conservatives, and they want to regulate content so it presents "fair and balanced" viewpoints on issues. This, in effect, would shutter talk radio, as it's business model is fueled by splenetic, highly partisan opinion-mongering.

I'm no fan of Limbaugh. In fact, I find him extremely offensive. (Exhibit A: "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.") I think he caters to the worst instincts of many, and degrades conservatism in the public mind.

Nonetheless, if there's a market and a willing distributor, all ideas should be heard. (Ahem. MSNBC?) As Reagan put it:

"This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."