WhackyNation

More than ever, a proposal I have been making for many years is appropriate to the political scene. That proposal is to apply the force of law to the charges made by candidates in the course of a campaign — charges that should be challenged in a court of law.

For example, the charges being made by the Gregoire camp in the current campaign are full of lies that could not be substantiated by fact and recent history. Those charges are being made primarily by organized labor and by Democratic forces seeking the re-election of Gov. Christine Gregoire.

The charges are repeated again and again in television, radio, and newspaper ads and are not sustained by fact. My contention is that a sincere political candidate should have the right to challenge the lies in a court of law and, if successful, force the offending candidate to pay the price. I think that price should be severe. If found guilty, the offending candidate should drop out of the race and, if the charges are unusually severe, be required to pay a fine whose amount would be determined by the court. I know this sounds harsh, but it is intended to help clean up the campaigns.

I acknowledge that my proposal would revolutionize politics in America, but what’s wrong with that? It’s about time we apply the cleanup brush to politics at the national, state, and local levels. We have been permitting candidates to lie about opponents for many, many years and have done nothing about it.

What would happen to the American political scene if my proposal were adopted across the nation? I’m positive that the nature of campaigns would change dramatically, a most welcome event. Candidates would have to begin concentrating on the positive, honest aspects of their candidacy.

The backbiting, lying, hateful campaign would be a thing of the past for the most part. It would not mean that a candidate could not explore the negative factors he or she might see in an opponent’s campaign. But it would mean that he or she could dwell only on those charges that could be sustained in a court of law.

I can already hear the angry counters to my proposal from those who favor continuing the present uncontrolled nature of politics. To hell with the truth, they say; anything goes in politics. They would strongly resist testing the veracity of their candidate in a court of law.

My proposal would not even need a constitutional or statutory change in the law. All that would be required would be a determination by the public that all political campaigns should stand the test of the truth. Why not? All matters outside politics in America can be tested in a court of law.

It is possible that a test of my proposal could begin with the action of a single candidate to take his case against an opponent to court to establish a truth system for all candidates. Is there a current candidate with enough courage to become that “revolutionary” politician? In fact, I would urge the current Republican candidate for governor of Washington, Dino Rossi, to consider becoming that revolutionary politician. He certainly has cause for it.

As the U. S. Defense Department prepares to turn over Fort Lawton to the city of Seattle, it appears Seattle is on the verge of turning its back on a proposal that would convert the old military fort into a “dream park” along the lines of Colorado’s Aspen Center, which is one of the most ideal arts, cultural, and educational parks in the world.

It appears that instead of considering an Aspen West, the city’s humdrum planners are thinking only of utilizing the fort as just another housing development. While the need for more housing units is acknowledged, the advantages of an Aspen West are being overlooked by the city.

Fort Lawton, whose acreage and adjacency to Puget Sound make it one of the most glorious view parks in the world, is even more attractive than Aspen. I have visited the Colorado Center and was stricken by its widespread uses in drawing arts, theater, music, educational, and other cultural conventions and attractions the year ‘round.

Aspen has become an international beacon, appealing to a variety of cultural organizations from cities and countries in Europe, Asia, South America, and other parts of the world. Imagine how much an Aspen-like park at old Fort Lawton could mean to Seattle with its coastline environment!

Instead of leaving a decision to the politicians and government departments of the city, I think Allied Arts of Seattle, the Seattle and Washington Arts Commissions, and the University of Washington should get into the act and demand that the Seattle City Council seriously consider the Aspen West proposal.

Way back in the 1950s, when I was serving as a daily columnist and critic-at-large at the Seattle Times, I began my pleading for consideration of copying the Aspen dream as the Army first began planning for turning Fort Lawton over to the city for whatever use it would consider.

While I engendered some support for the idea, the city leadership unfortunately refused to consider the Aspen West plan. Instead, it listened to the requests by Indian tribes for land at the fort, and the Indians won out, even though the city should have had first choice of uses at the fort. That’s how Discovery Park was born.

I’ve been surprised by the fact that present homeowners in the Magnolia District have not rallied over the years to the Aspen idea, which would give the entire district special significance — besides boosting the real-estate value immensely of not only the homes but all the other properties in Magnolia.

I think Seattle residents should mount a campaign to require a delegation from the Seattle City Council to visit Aspen in Colorado to see firsthand the great attractions at that center and how a similar park could serve to Seattle’s great advantage. Seeing is believing. If the city should do so, it should invite members of Allied Arts and the Seattle Art Commission to go along.

As a longtime Columbia River watchdog in the Pacific Northwest, I have had mixed emotions over a Columbia River Gorge bill passed by Congress several years ago. On one hand, it was designed to bring some protection to one of the most beautiful natural treasures in America.

But on the other, that protection has meant a virtual confiscation of a great deal of private land by the federal government, which has not exactly been the best and most reasonable of landlords. In fact, the evidence over the years has been that the intrusive hand of government has been an alarming case of Big Government at its worst.

The Gorge bill had the bothersome capacity for setting the stage for some unnecessary donnybrooks on land-management policy and use between the states of Washington and Oregon, as well as between the two states and the bureaucracies of the federal government.

For example, consider this mishmash of controlling factors that are now present in the management of the Gorge in particular and the Columbia River in general:

The secretary of agriculture now has the authority to call all the shots on general policy regarding the Gorge and the river.

A Gorge manager selected from the U.S. Forest Service was given the authority to run things at the site.

A Gorge Commission made up of six persons from Washington and six from Oregon was given the job of developing a long-range management plan for the scenic area — even though final authority for major decisions was left to the secretary of agriculture and his personally selected manager.

Regardless of the decisions made by the Gorge Commission, the federal government was given the last word on any policies made for the site and for the river. However, a glimmer of light was added to the measure by Congress in a brilliant display of hindsight. It gave the Washington-Oregon commission the right to overrule the feds on policy, provided it could do it by at least a two-thirds vote of commissioners! What a twisted mess of verbiage that bill provided.

It hasn’t happened yet, but I have had the hope that the Gorge measure will eventually be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, because of that strange provision giving a two-state-level commission veto power over congressional authority handed to the federal government.

The whole tangle reminds me of that marvelous comedy routine, “Who’s on first?”, staged so often by the team of Abbott and Costello for the stage, radio, and television. Want more? Jot this down: About half of the 277,000 acres of the site is under the management of the Forest Service and the other half by the Gorge Commission. Who’s on first, indeed!

It sounds as if the bill was written by a boxing promoter with a penchant for arranging fights that were bound to come to no decision. One must hope that the Gorge, one of the most beautiful sites in the U.S. and, in fact, in the world, will survive the machinations of a wretched piece of legislation.

Bravo, Bill Gates! The Microsoft genius, who already has contributed millions of dollars to eradicating two of the worst diseases known to man, AIDS and malaria, has now joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a worldwide movement to eliminate the smoking habit in particular and the tobacco industry in general.

What a tremendous task he and Bloomberg have taken on! The tobacco industry is entrenched throughout the world and most notably in America’s South. But Gates and Bloomberg, undeterred by the power of the tobacco industry, have combined to devote $500 million in their anti-tobacco campaign.

Gates will be able to invest much of his time, as well, in the campaign against the tobacco lords because he recently turned over management of Microsoft to his buddy, Steve Ballmer, so he could spend full time with his wife in the direction of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the world’s wealthiest foundation.

In its report concerning Gates’ newest endeavor, the Seattle Times said the money advanced by Gates and Bloomberg “supports policies to increase tobacco taxes, change the image of tobacco, protect nonsmokers from exposure, ban tobacco advertising, and help smokers quit.”

While the campaigns against AIDS and malaria are aimed primarily at the high rate of the diseases in Africa, there is no doubt that the primary targets in the anti-tobacco movement will be China and India, as well as the U.S., where the number of smokers is clearly the highest.

As the Times reported, “the largest foundation in the world must overcome the tobacco industry’s enormous advertising and lobbying efforts, not to mention cultural practices in which cigarettes play a central role.

‘If we can implement policies now and educate young people….that’s what keeps people from starting to smoke,” said Kathy Cahill, deputy director of the foundation’s global-health program. “That’s the counter to tobacco companies’ advertising and pushing their products.”

His latest endeavor adds heroic proportions to Bill Gates in the 21^st Century. As I see it, he is the most important figure in the century and already the most generous. I’m reminded of the great generosity of John D. Rockefeller in the 20^th Century, and it is clear to me that Gates will easily outshine Rockefeller in generosity.

If it should happen that his “peace through a health movement” should help bring the world closer to permanent peace, he will most assuredly be acclaimed as the greatest personality in history. Now, if the U.S. and other major powers will join the Gates movement with support and more billions, the dream of world peace will become a reality.

About 40 years ago, the United States Forest Service made a monumental decision concerning forest fires. After years of painstaking research and experimentation, it decided it made a lot of sense to turn away from many forest fires — and just let them burn themselves out.

Now, if you’re a traditionalist about such things as forest fires, as I was at the time, you may have said something like this when the Forest Service made its big decision: “This guy (meaning me) is as dingy as those people running the Forest Service. How can anyone be in favor of letting the forests burn?”

But wait. The Forest Service was positive and still is that its new policy made late in the 20^th Century was the right one. However, its communication with the public hasn’t kept up with the research, I’m fraid. Forest ecology requires cleanups, and Mother Nature has always demanded tht certain conditions in the forests be set right through fires.

The Forest Service discovered that relatively small fires in the wilderness are required by nature to eliminate materials on the forest floor that will one day trigger a far greater burn. In fact, the service deliberately sets some fires or, once started, purposely permits them to burn with a view to the future greater safety of the forests.

Once in a while, Mother Nature plays tricks on the human race and a serious forest fire results, as we have seen often in the hot spring and summer months. But, for the most part, it is actually a wise policy. I’m sure most members of the public understand when all factors are considered.

The new forest policy, made by foresters who know what they’re doing and who ave nature and the nation’s forests uppermost in their minds at all times, is designed to save lives, prevent injuries, and avoid wasting millions of dollars and personnel expended to fight fires. The funds saved could better be used to promote timber renewal with an even greater tree-planting program. Those funds can also be used by the Forest Service in mounting a much better information campaign to make citizens aware of its new policy and the importance of carefully controlled forest fires.

In the meantime, environmental organizations should make a much greater attempt to understand and appreciate the validity of the Forest Service’s policy. The enviros want hands off the forests; they also oppose roads built in the forest by logging companies and even those roads ordinary citizens must have to enjoy time in the wilderness.

Worst of all, the extremists want the Forest Service and everyone else to keep hands off the debris that lies among the trees in the forests and which turns small fires into large, dangerous ones. Cleaning up the fallen branches, massive piles of dry, old leves, and other debris is important and should not be opposed by anyone.

Logging companies long ago signaled their willingness to cooperate with the Forest Service, not only in keeping fires to a minimum but also in making sure that logging practices are conducted with constant observance of environmental concerns in the public and private forests. It is in their best interests to keep forests safe and to maintain new growth consistent with the best environmental standards. Well cared for trees are a most important renewable resource.

As I watched local folk dancers at a recent Folklife Festival in Seattle a short time ago, my mind went back about 50 years to a folk-dance company that took America by storm and touched off a parade of visiting foreign folk troupes across the nation. That trailblazer was Russia’s Moiseyev Dancers.

The Moiseyev company recorded sellout after sellout and wildly cheering audiences wherever it appeared in that first tour of the U.S. In an era dominated by classical ballet and ballroom dancing, it reminded us that there remained more vitality and natural artistry in the folk variety than in any of its more polished offshoots.

I was covering the arts for the Seattle Times in those days, and I wondered out loud and in print why America couldn’t create a national folk-dance company of its own and offer it not only to our own people but to all other nations, as well. Why not? The Russians did it with classically trained ballet dancers.

And so did Mexico, the Philippines, and many Asian, African, and Central European nations — all of whom sent their companies to America for display and U.S. dollars. That’s ironic, because the U.S. has long had the greatest mix of ethnic peoples in the world to go along with native Indian dances.

Our nation is also rich in frontier dances, square dances, the variety of dances of America’s richly musical blacks, and the dances of the jazz and swing eras. In addition are the dances created by the great era of Broadway and film musicals and the ensemble dancing they offered with such extraordinary sets and casts.

The material is unlimited, and so is the already present pool of choreographers, dancers, producers, directors, composers, stage directors, graphic artists, and all the rest. Without question, the opportunity to create a troupe of American folk dancers is screaming for fulfillment.

Think of the remarkable potential! Let’s say the program for a performance by the first American Folk Dance Company traced the history of America from the arrival of Columbus to the present day. It could begin with Indian dances in a setting designed by a modern choreographer and devoted to the dances of tribes across the nation.

Then the program would move to a New Orleans setting and the dances of African-Americans on the levees and in the streets of the Big Easy. The next segment could be devoted to the marvelous dances of the dogies and the early frontiersmen. Then the spotlight would shift to the folk and country dances of the early Americans on the East Coast and in the Midwest. The potential is endless, as is our history.

I have mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating. When the New York City Ballet appeared in the early weeks of the Seattle World’s Fair of 1962, I met with Director Lincoln Kirsten and choreographer George Balanchine for an interview. In the process, I mentioned my idea for the creation of an American Folk Dance Company and suggested to them that the New York City Ballet could be its sponsor.

Both men warmed to the idea, and Kirsten suggested I write out my proposal and mail it to him at his New York office. I did so. For reasons I will never know, neither man responded. But both of them died soon thereafter. The idea remains very much alive and is available for any enterprising dance-minded organization.

I’m told that virtually every city in America has an agency that is always looking for new ideas in the arts. Well, here’s one I’ve been trying to get adopted by cities and towns across the nation. It’s a bold, visionary suggestion and it is spelled out simply this way: A High School for the Arts.

I’ve been informed that such a high school does exist in North Carolina and in a few other states on the East Coast. But it’s an idea that is long overdue and should be considered nationally. Perhaps it should be adopted as a permanent proposal by the federal government and Congress.

I tried for years to get my home city of Seattle to create such a high school and, with a demonstration school, encourage all other cities in Washington State to consider copying Seattle’s example. I was a critic-at-large then and thought the idea would catch on quickly. It was ironic that the proposal didn’t catch on, because Washington State has long been a trailblazer in the world of all the arts.

What present-day high-school systems, both public and private, fail to recognize is this extremely important factor: The performing and visual arts are as vital a discipline and a career as anything taught in our high schools today. It’s a statement that is easy to prove.

A high school for the arts serves the needs of those thousands of young people who can’t get the preparatory training they need at an early age in music, the visual and performing arts, the crafts, literature, drama, the theater, and related studies — as well as all the operational crafts that go along with them.

We can only guess at how many talented young people have been forced to abandon careers in the arts because present school systems provide little incentive and little or not training for those careers. Even the few arts and music courses offered in the schools are being cut back because of the pressure to concentrate on core subjects.

I call it educational discrimination. It’s about time that artistically t alented young people get an even break at the high-school level. Those individuals who run the public and private school systems should be made aware of the fact that the arts continue to be considered “frills” and aren’t given the same status as the so-called core subjects.

In addition, I have been a longtime backer of an idea that should be a companion to the high-school-for-the-arts proposal, although it has been recognized as essential to education in a few states. It is a proposal to make career training a major function of education, not only at the high-school level but also in the nation’s public and private junior-high and middle-school systems.

I have already mentioned that many arts-talented youngsters are forced to consider other careers. It could also be said about many other young people, who are talented in other fields but are never given a chance to work in those fields because they haven’t prepared for them in their early school years.

As a matter or fact, colleges and universities should also include career training in their curricula, because many college students don’t realize they have special talents that are ideal for careers they never consider. By the time they get their diplomas, it’s too late to obtain the training they should have had for the careers they may never follow.

One of the brightest proposals to come out of Congress these days is a surprising but appropriate measure to return to the national speed limit for automobiles of 55 miles per hour — a limit that was invoked way back in the days of the energy crisis of the early 1970s.

To be sure, the proposal will have rough sledding, but it has everything going for it in this day of soaring gasoline prices on one hand and rising deaths and serious injuries in traffic across the nation on the other. Of course, the speedsters will oppose any such measure with all their might, but common sense should prevail.

It’s surprising that President Bush did not resort to a request for lowering the speed limit in his appeal for action to counter the rising gasoline prices. One would think such a move would be automatic, regardless of the pressure that might be applied by the gasoline and automobile industries.

Frankly, I would welcome a return to the 55 mph speed limit on the highways and roadways.

Speed belongs on the race track, not the city and rural roads. We have become a nation of speedsters, and it’s about time to restore some tranquility and safety to our transportation system.

Lowering the speed limit will automatically forestall the many tragedies that have occurred with the speed limit at 70. I’ve noticed fearfully the number of speed idiots who don’t stop at 70 but proceed at 75, 80, and even faster for the thrill of it. They are the demons who create havoc and death for those who try to drive lawfully.

In addition to a return to the 55 mph limit on the highways and roadways, there is another measure I would like to see reinstated permanently, a measure that would not only save precious lives and limbs but also relieve our fumbling traffic from getting any worse. It is a return to the day no one could obtain a driver’s license until he or she is 18.

These days, it has become automatic for 16-year-olds to demand a driver’s license. Along with that demand without fail goes the jalopy that goes with it — and thus the entry of still another driver and auto on our highways and roadways, to the consternation of the police and state patrols.

Youngsters below the age of 18 are still going to school, and they should be taking a bus or streetcar to school, just as I did and all my school friends did years ago. The creation of a whole new body of drivers 16 or 17 years old hit the bus and streetcar systems hard and began this crazy era of traffic jams in every city and town in America.

Yes, increased use of bicycles has helped somewhat, but it has been but a minor help in reducing the heavy traffic and the use of precious gasoline. All in all, I can see the common sense in a brand new transportation policy for America —- one that reduces the use and importance of cars on the roadways and brings a new development in the use of buses and streetcars.

If we don’t take action to cut the mania for speed on our roadways, we will see the day when America becomes one huge parking lot — and no one can succeed in getting from here to there.

The Republican Party is missing a tremendous opportunity to turn the tide in its favor and win control of Congress and the White House in November — as well as to win control of all 50 of the state legislatures. It can be done with a broad, definitive plan to save the economy and prevent a slide into a recession or even a depression.

All the Republicans have to do is come up with a plan to solve the energy crisis, bring down the price of gasoline and groceries, and end the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. That plan has already been advanced — if only the Republicans will recognize it and adopt it as its own.

I have referred to that plan many times already. It was first proposed by my longtime friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, when she was chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Back in 1973, she was asked by President Nixon to come up with a plan that would make the U.S. self-sufficient in energy.

Dixy called upon scientists, engineers, and others in industry and academia to help her put together a total energy plan for the U.S. Six months later, she took the finished plan to Nixon at the White House and asked him to present it to Congress. Unfortunately, the Watergate crisis had already hit the headlines. A distracted Nixon thanked Dixy and put the plan on the shelf in the Oval Office, where it may remain today.

The plan, which the Republicans should adopt today, included opening the way for new oil refineries, offshore oil drillings, the construction of up to 1,000 more nuclear-energy plants across America, and continued research on the potential for all new forms of energy, including solar power, wind power, shale recovery, and many more.

It is a plan that is even more vital to rescuing the economy than it was back then in the energy crisis of 1973. With such a proposal, the Republicans could demonstrate the continued foolishness of the proposals that have been made by former Vice President Al Gore.

With such a plan, the Republicans could make a direct appeal to voters, because it would solve the problems worrying them most. It would prevent the continuing inflationary trend in America that is driving up prices on food, commodities, housing, and every other aspect of American life.

The Republicans should quit trying to appease the Liberal Democrats and go their own way. That appeasement has brought inaction on every important issue before Congress, and it has produced a stalemate that favors the Democrats in the current election.

How can the Republicans be activated into adopting the total energy plan I have referred to here? Voters should demand action by the G.O.P. to solve the soaring price dilemma and end our dependence upon the foreign oil-rich nations. It can be done. In fact, it must be done before our economy is destroyed.

Why have we permitted the aggravating continuation of the national dispute over marijuana and refused to resolve it in an orderly, scientific manner? At present, the dispute remains in every region of the U.S., thanks to the relatively few numbers of constant users.

In some regions, marijuana is permitted because it is reputed to be a medical relief for persons with certain health problems, while in others it is considered criminal to grow, use, or utilize it for medical relief. It’s about time honest science meets the issue head-on and provides a permanent solution to the pesky issue.

Overlooked for a variety of reasons these days is the work of a group of scientists that came up with the notion that there exists certain medications that are superior to marijuana in giving relief to those persons with certain ailments. But their research has been ignored for reasons that are obscure.

Science owes it to the American public to come up with a permanent solution to this dilemma. The misuse of marijuana is a serious national problem. It leads users to other, more serious drugs that ruin their lives. Young, misguided persons are specially in danger as they experiment with what is called pot.

The American Medical Association should lead the way in calling for an all-out research program to settle the issue once and for all. It should request Congress to provide the funds and the research materials for a thorough plan of action that will utilize the best scientific brains in industry, the professions, and academia.

In the meantime, Congress should declare a moratorium on the use of marijuana everywhere in the nation — a moratorium that would last until the national research is completed and a final decision on the use of marijuana is available.

Such a program is needed for other reasons. Courts, lawmaking bodies, and police are at odds over what action to take in the meantime. In some areas, police are conducting raids on properties used to grow marijuana that is designed to be used for medical purposes. In some of those cases, the home-grown patches are supported by the law.

While the research program is going on, a ban on the use of marijuana should be imposed in every city and state in the union. Of course, such a ban would touch off a national howl by the pot users, whether they use the stuff for so-called medical purposes or just for tying on a “high one.”

They would say such a ban has never been tried before, but they would be wrong. Way back in the last century, we saw a ban on alcohol sales and use in what was known as the Prohibition Era. While it lasted, police raided homes and distilleries that were producing and selling illegal liquor.

The Prohibition Era also produced a murderous crop of racketeers and gangland slayings, and we certainly don’t want a repeat of that foul history. But a marijuana ban imposed by a group of honest, dedicated scientists would certainly not bring about an era like the Prohibition days.

I think it is terribly unfortunate that Seattle seems to have forgotten about the magnificent dream the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray had for the gem she created way back in the 1940s as the Seattle World’s Fair was drawing to a close. Well, I have tried many times to revive her dream in columns, commentaries, and speeches, and I’m going to try again.

First, a little history. When the plans were under way for a World’s Fair, it was Dixy who organized the first action to make a Science Center a special part of the fair. She went to Washington, D.C., to talk to her old friend, Senator Warren Magnuson, about a multi-million federal package to build the Science Center.

Magnuson collaborated with Dixy to obtain the federal funds, and she returned with the go-ahead on the Science Center. Without Dixy’s inspiration, the center would never have materialized. It was one of the most successful features of the 1942 event and drew thousands of visitors.

The center was also an instant hit with the public and private schools in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest — and it remains so today. But Dixy had a much broader dream for the Science Center and was proceeding on her program to convert the facility into an even more spectacular design.

Dr. Ray was negotiating with the nation’s greatest museum, the Smithsonian, to bring a branch of that museum into Seattle’s Pacific Center, but her death at 79 called a halt to the proposal. However, she had hoped that her successors would follow up on her dream and complete the plan.

It would have been a major coup for Seattle and the Center if her dream had become a reality — which it still should. The Smithsonian has sponsored the creation of branches in many cities across the U.S., and they are extraordinary successes in presenting all phases of the sciences, a direct boon for the schools.

I don’t understand why the directors who have succeeded Dixy at the Science Center haven’t followed up on her plan, which was on the verge of becoming a reality when she died. Seattle’s City Council and especially the present director of the Seattle Center should take up the proposal where Dixy left it off.

The Science Center is ready for the acceptance of a Smithsonian branch, which would bring a dazzling series of scientific exhibitions to Seattle. Maybe this commentary will spark a new interest in the idea at the City Council and the headquarters of the Seattle Center.

Perhaps the public and private school systems in the region would supply the support needed to bring back Dixy’s “magnificent dream” and make it a reality. I hope so.

In the ongoing election campaign, I have been struck by the number of political mailings I have received at home that have had one thing in common: No matter how many I have received — and they have been more abundant than usual — the candidates have carefully delivered their copious message without once referring to their party affiliation.

A number of questions have entered my mind. Were they actually ashamed of their party affiliation or worried that the affiliation might cost them votes? Or were they purposely concealing their party affiliation so that they would not lose the votes of voters favoring the other party?

These and other questions suggest that something is seriously out of whack with our election systems in many states, and maybe all of them. The recent California comedy that passed for an election turned the spotlight on what ails the system everywhere and will continue to hamper it until we do something to correct it.

As I’ve said in other commentaries, the most glaring failure in California was the lack of a primary election that could have weeded out all the misfits from a ballot that included some 130 candidates for governor. Obviously, the two-party system has broken down seriously in California, as it has in many other states.

Is that a serious failing? In my estimation, nothing could be more serious a danger to the democratic process in the U.S. As a lifelong student of government and political science, I know that our strength as a freedom-loving, free-enterprise nation depends upon adherence to a system that boasts two major political parties.

From the time the U.S. Constitution was created and approved, the two-party system has prevailed and kept the ship of state steady and politically healthy. That doesn’t mean that other parties were shut out; on the contrary, they were permitted to flourish and seek their own following.

Our two major political parties absorbed the impact of “third parties” along the way by listening to their complaints and platforms and accepting those ideas that appealed to many people and that were consistent with constitutional law and statutes. That absorption of good ideas took the wind out of the sails of the third parties and kept the two-party system intact.

We’ve seen what happens in foreign nations that do not maintain a two-party system. With half a dozen or more political parties vying for power at each election, they are in almost a constant state of political turmoil. Many of them experience so many changes in leadership that it’s difficult to remember who is at the helm at any given time.

We don’t want that to happen in the U.S. The two major political parties must weed out the incompetents and support those most capable of leading governments at all levels. Californians and all the rest of us must get back to the system in which voters select the party of their choice — and in which they demand that the two parties choose their most capable men and women for each elective position.

Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, congressional Democrats are once again seeking to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, the grossly “unfair” doctrine the Liberal Democrats employed from 1949 until it was repealed by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987.

The ill-conceived doctrine was designed to force radio and television stations to give equal time to opposing opinions on controversial subjects. Clearly, the Democrats want to bring back the doctrine to counter the strong influence broadcast voices like Rush Limbaugh and others have had in favor of Conservative viewpoints.

Conservatives, including this writer, have argued that such a doctrine interferes with any news medium’s right to present any point of view it chooses, whether those opinions are offered by editorialists, commentators, or even reporters. And that’s the way it should be if we are to support a free, unfettered news media.

The truth of the matter is that the emergence of such Conservatives as Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Cassidy Hannity, Michael Medved, and many others has managed to balance the political scales and offer resistance to the slide toward Socialism that has been promoted by the Democratic Liberals.

At least one strong voice has been heard to oppose any attempt by the Democrats to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine if the Democrats continue to control Congress and even the White House in the November elections. That is the voice of Kevin Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

In a statement issued to the Democrats in Congress, Martin issued a strong warning against any attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which actually should be renamed the Unfairness Doctrine because it actually runs counter to the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press.

Martin and others opposing the doctrine say that if it were restored, radio and television stations might be encouraged to eliminate all Conservative viewpoints and programs from their schedules, leaving the field wide open to Liberals alone. That would be a disastrous occurrence and lead to a continued slide toward Socialism in America.

I have argued that Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular should insist that their best defense against a Fairness Doctrine would be to warn the news media that, if the doctrine is reinstated, it should also be applied to the newspapers and the radio and television industry.

The reason for the warning is clear. The American news media have consistently slanted the news in favor of the Liberals. All the Conservatives have to demand is that the so-called Fairness Doctrine should also apply to the print and broadcast news media, forcing newspapers and broadcasters