AHC: conservatives easily accept Clinton as legitimately president in 1993?

That would have been stopped if the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed in 1987. It would have changed Clinton's perceived image.

Well sort of? It certainly didn’t stop local radio stations and their right wing talk shows, as long as they let liberal callers through they could say whatever they wanted. That’s the 1960s on. It going national in the 1980s was more complicated than just the repeal.
 
Last edited:
Well sort of? It certainly didn’t stop local radio stations and their right wing talk shows, as long as they let liberal callers through they could say whatever they wanted. That’s the 1960s on. It going national in the 1980s was more complicated than just the repeal.
Local callers on the phone in bad-grammar hillbilly English can express opinion received with an evaluation of credibility. And it was local. When a professional speaker like Rush Limbaugh went national, as you said, he received attention. Had the Fairness Doctrine been in place and Limbaugh attacked Clinton as he did, the radio stations would be obligated to provide equal time to Al Franken.
 
- The Democrats agree to Nixoncare.
- Clinton enlists in the military when he's 18.
- Clinton never tries marijuana.
- Clinton keeps his pants zipped throughout his life.
- Anti-trust laws stay stronger.
- The Fairness Doctrine is maintained.
- Rush Limbaugh sticks to sports.
- No federal gun-free school (zone) laws.
- Wayne LaPierre doesn't join the NRA.
- Bob Casey is given whatever he wanted at the convention.
- No Perot.
- No Ruby Ridge or Waco.
- No Clintoncare.
- No Assault Weapons Ban.
 
Last edited:
Local callers on the phone in bad-grammar hillbilly English can express opinion received with an evaluation of credibility. And it was local. When a professional speaker like Rush Limbaugh went national, as you said, he received attention. Had the Fairness Doctrine been in place and Limbaugh attacked Clinton as he did, the radio stations would be obligated to provide equal time to Al Franken.

It just never had the teeth supporters or detractors claimed.

To begin with, the Fairness Doctrine was not as forceful a policy as it has subsequently been portrayed (Extra!, 1-2/05). It vaguely called on broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” It did not require that programs be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50; talk radio featuring callers arguing with the host technically fulfilled the “conflicting views” requirement. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC ever concerned itself with talkshows.
 
Last edited:
. . . a different media landscape . . .
. . . if the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed in 1987. . .
- The Fairness Doctrine is maintained.
But I still think the Fairness Doctrine changed expectations on the part of both station management and their listeners.

And I don’t quite understand how station owners thought all their local business advertisers were right-wing nut jobs? Or, to ask it a different way, just like we used to have a conservative coalition of anti-tax conservatives, evangelicals, and cold warriors . . . it looks like the modern coalition now includes conspiracy theorists. But then, that shouldn’t be too big a surprise. I think about 30% (or more!) of our fellow are very open to believing in conspiracy theory.

In fact, going all the way back to the American Revolution, a lot of Americans believed King George was intentionally runnng down the colonies, rather than just paying off a war (the French and Indian War concurrent with Seven Years War).

———————

Friendly Warning: Although we can freely discuss perceptions regarding conspiracy theory, diving into the details pro and con is a kickable offense, and at times a bannable offense, here at our Alternate History website. The thinking is that it would just devour too much of the conversation.

I include this since I brought up the damn subject! :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:
And I don’t quite understand how station owners thought all their local business advertisers were right-wing nut jobs?
Clear Channel (now "iHeart") bought out almost every single radio station that exists in America. Clear Channel/iHeart seems to be owned by right-wing nutjobs. They took liberal talk shows off the air while giving Limbaugh a nationwide audience. They also did things such as taking Britney Spears off the airwaves to retaliate against her for turning down their tour sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
When Paul Harvey reported news from a conservative standpoint and when Joe Pyne entertained callers with mostly conservative viewpoints, it was civil enough to go without controversy. When Rush Limbaugh blasted out against Clinton, it would have triggered equal time for the other side had the Fairness Doctrine been in place. Yes, it was a little vague, but Limbaugh was blatant.
 
Clear Channel (now "iHeart") bought out almost every single radio station that exists in America. Clear Channel/iHeart seems to be owned by right-wing nutjobs. They took liberal talk shows off the air while giving Limbaugh a nationwide audience. They also did things such as taking Britney Spears off the airwaves to retaliate against her for turning down their tour sponsorship.
Thank you for bringing this up, especially their new corporate moniker.

And the part of retaliating against Britney for not using their tour sponsorship, it's like the old days with the mob, you want liquor delivery, you got to buy a jukebox (which I think was an aspect of the 1978 movie F.I.S.T. loosely based on the teamsters union)

Anyway, I'm all in favor of calling out "iHeart."
 
When Paul Harvey reported news from a conservative standpoint and when Joe Pyne entertained callers with mostly conservative viewpoints, it was civil enough to go without controversy. When Rush Limbaugh blasted out against Clinton, it would have triggered equal time for the other side had the Fairness Doctrine been in place. Yes, it was a little vague, but Limbaugh was blatant.
Yes, this is what I would hope would happen. but @Electric Monk raises the very good point that even this may be beyond the capacity of Fairness Doctrine. My idea is that expectations of such may carry us part of the way.

And really with the stagflation in the 1970s, I think liberals, progressives, unionists, feminists, believers in equal rights for Latino Americans and African-Americans, etc, etc, missed a golden opportunity in basically not giving preachers and conservatives a run for their money on AM radio!
 
I don’t mean to make an unproductive post, but I really think the OP’s premise is loaded and just a tad bit flawed in its approach.

The GOP never liked “Slick Willie” and weaponized the special prosecutors office in a manner similar to what we’re seeing now with the Mueller report and the aftermath. There’s no real dispute about that.

But the GOP never questioned the electoral legitimacy of Clinton, and having realized from the 1994 midterms that Clinton was “good for business” (IE, his wife and him pissed the base off like nobody else could - and frankly still do) so they sought to make him a prisoner in his own White House.

Bill would shift towards the right and get credit for Republican policies being passed (ie, the budget, etc) and in return they ran the weakest, most uninspiring candidate they could in order to pave the way for W in 2000.

I know conspiracy theories are frowned on here, but that’s pretty much my understanding of the Clinton Presidency from what I’ve read over the years.
 
. . . but I really think the OP’s premise is loaded and just a tad bit flawed in its approach. . .
Maybe it is! although I have a theory that sometimes flawed art works out the best and that we should embrace our flaws :p

My main premise is, keep conservatives and Republicans from moving so far to the right.
 
The GOP never liked “Slick Willie” and weaponized the special prosecutors office in a manner similar to what we’re seeing now with the Mueller report and the aftermath. There’s no real dispute about that.

But the GOP never questioned the electoral legitimacy of Clinton, and having realized from the 1994 midterms that Clinton was “good for business” (IE, his wife and him pissed the base off like nobody else could - and frankly still do) .

I think this is what the OP really means by legitimate - The Republicans saw Clinton as a person as illegitimate and reacted to his presidency with a level of vitriol that you didn't see with Kennedy/Johnson or Jimmy Carter. The question is to what extent was this reaction related to Clinton himself or to specific decisions by Republican actors which could have easily been changed, versus being motivated by larger trends in the media and political attitudes that would have resulted in Clinton's vilification even if he'd been a saint.

My personal opinion leans towards the reaction being to Clinton as an individual. For the older generation of Republican pundits and donors, Clinton seemed to typify everything they thought had gone wrong with society since the 1960s: personal self-indulgence and a rejection of traditional mores (both in respect to his own life and his political support for gay rights) combined with a refusal to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation. That Clinton the draft-dodger beat out George HW Bush the genuine war hero probably offended many of them on a deeply personal level and made them much more willing to countenance the outlandish conspiracy theories.
 
Maybe it is! although I have a theory that sometimes flawed art works out the best and that we should embrace our flaws :p

My main premise is, keep conservatives and Republicans from moving so far to the right.
Forgive me if my words seemed harsh - I didn’t read it that way, but that is a failure on my end.
 
. . . The GOP never liked “Slick Willie” and weaponized the special prosecutors office in a manner similar to what we’re seeing now with the Mueller report and the aftermath. . .
I don't view it as symmetrical.

I don't know as much about Ken Starr. But I view the Mueller report as very measured, when he basically had Trump dead to rights on obstruction and choose not to go forward.

Going to try to pull a quote from a book that impeachment was a "dead letter" even in the mid 1800s.

I just hope that my fellow Democrats are going to make decisions, not out of some awkward clumsy sense of obligation, but rather a full-bodied judgment call of what's both good politics and good policy.

To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment
By Laurence Tribe, Joshua Matz, 2018

https://books.google.com/books?id=g... Impeachment Clause as a dead letter"&f=false

"Moreover, from 1868 until the early 1950s, many politicians saw the Impeachment Clause as a dead letter."
The part I was looking for was in 1848 and involved a fight to censure Polk for invading Mexico, but apparently not available on google books. A Whig politician said, "impeachment is almost a dead letter in the Constitution"
 
Last edited:
. . . For the older generation of Republican pundits and donors, Clinton seemed to typify everything they thought had gone wrong with society since the 1960s: personal self-indulgence and a rejection of traditional mores (both in respect to his own life and his political support for gay rights) combined with a refusal to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation. . .
Plus, Clinton was relatively young.
 
A big factor is the way Clinton was labeled as a draft-dodger. Anybody with his academic credentials could have made the proposals he did. By 1970, he finished his master's degree and had reneged on an obligation to go to law school on ROTC and eventually serve as an officer. He became fully eligible to be drafted in the summer of 1970 and his high draft lottery number would not have helped him because he had a signed agreement. The army, though, was having severe morale problems as 1970 was the year conscripts age 19-25 were inducted by draft lottery numbers. The last thing the army wanted was more 24-year old graduate students.
 
I think this is what the OP really means by legitimate - The Republicans saw Clinton as a person as illegitimate and reacted to his presidency with a level of vitriol that you didn't see with Kennedy/Johnson or Jimmy Carter. The question is to what extent was this reaction related to Clinton himself or to specific decisions by Republican actors which could have easily been changed, versus being motivated by larger trends in the media and political attitudes that would have resulted in Clinton's vilification even if he'd been a saint.

My personal opinion leans towards the reaction being to Clinton as an individual. For the older generation of Republican pundits and donors, Clinton seemed to typify everything they thought had gone wrong with society since the 1960s: personal self-indulgence and a rejection of traditional mores (both in respect to his own life and his political support for gay rights) combined with a refusal to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation. That Clinton the draft-dodger beat out George HW Bush the genuine war hero probably offended many of them on a deeply personal level and made them much more willing to countenance the outlandish conspiracy theories.
They thought that Clintoncare would give their taxpayer dollars to aldulterers, drug users, gays, athiests, single mothers, etc. They saw the Waco Siege and the Assault Weapons Ban as indicating a plan to "take their guns" and force everyone to become atheist.
 
Top