I happen to be an Atheist, and I also happen to be a Socialist ideologue.  Not once in my life had I ever thought the two connected until I came across Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk and Dr. Gerhardt Niemeyer.  They argue that every Western ideology (literally, save their own) is an attempt by Man to chart uncertain times in a post-Christian culture, "modernity's golden calf".

Quoth Buchanan:  "As ideologues believe themselves possessed of a true faith that has been denied to others, and see a golden future other cannot see, they are impatient with and intolerant of dissent.  Like many sects, ideologues tend to be exclusionary, to rely on one another, to promote their own, to punish all defectors and heretics, to form cliques and cabals - to realize the vision.  And as their vision is of a world that has never before existed, or existed only in the mythical past, they are prone to utopianism.  They brave new world is on the way - if only we keep the faith!" 

Quoth Kirk, in "The Drug of Ideology":  "'Ideology' does not mean political theory or principle, even though many journalists and some professors commonly emply the term in that sense.  Ideology really means political fanaticism - and, more precisely, the belief that this world of ours can be converted into a Terrestrial Paradise through the operation of positive law and positive planning."

Quoth Niemeyer, Notre Dame professor:  "All modern ideologies have the same irrational root:  the permeation of politics with millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious character.  The result is a dreamworld.

The lone exception is conservatism, which according to Kirk, stands at opposite poles from the ideological mind.

They could not be more wrong or offensive.  It is utter nonsense.  It is an a priori attack on atheists and secularists to call any behavior of ours religious, and it is a subtle attack on non-Conservative Christians by stating that their political beliefs stand at odds with their proper religious ones. 

Ideologies (mine, yours, everyone who has one) is nothing more than a philosophy of first principles applied to political logic.  No more, no less.  Nothing can divine the future, but coherent ideologies make it easier to form policy in the face of changing events, not to predict them.

To prove the suppleness and flexiblity of my mind, I will show how I have to come to change my mind on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine.  The Fairness Doctrine was first used by the national government to force a Socialist-owned radio station in New York to diversify the political content of their broadcasting.  So, not only was it anti-Socialist in origin, but it is a blatent violation of the 1st Amendment - the law of the land even if I didn't fervently believe in it (which I do).  Broadly speaking, the Fairness Doctrine was a set of F.C.C. regulations and favorable Supreme Court decisions that stated that as radio spectrum was a finite and public good, political speech used with it had to be balanced on controversial issues of the day.

Mark Fowler, a Reagan-appointed to the F.C.C., dismantled it.  He argued that not only was radio spectrum something that could be privately owned, but that advances in technology made it possible for many more stations to broadcast than before and in any event, the government could no longer violate Free Speech.

Setting aside the notion of who should own radio spectrum, even if Conservatives or Republicans owned 100% of political talk radio shows (when, in fact, they only own 99.875%) I would still support Mr. Fowler's position.  My problem is not in the restriction of other points of view, per se.  It is the irresponsibility talk radio has engendered in America's body politic.  I am not a Democrat, so I have no interest in seeing Democrat-talking points represented in radio.  Nor do I expect that Socialists have the financial or political heft to justify mass exposure on conservative talk shows.  But. 

In any functional and healty democracy (or even a polyarchal representative republic!), the nation depends on a governing Party (or coalition) and a Loyal Opposition.  It is fine - in point of fact, it is their job - for Republicans to oppose Barack Obama and the Democrats at most every turn.  It can be argued that Republicans should mostly support President Obama in the realm of foreign affairs, and it can be argued that Republicans should primarily care for the sake of their constituents, but by and large the minority party ought to oppose the majority party's agenda.  However, there is a fine line where the minority party still has to maintain loyalty to the nation and its political and social institutions.  

Talk radio is harming the country, by both dumbing down and radicalizing its supportive listeners.  It is doing this by means of propaganda, slander, and factual lies.  There is literally no self-imposed limit, no decorum violated, and no insult right-wingers and their pre-screened callers will not hurl on those with whom they disagree - but for the sake of ratings and advertising revenue.  It has devolved from political speech to incitement, and the result is increased calls for political violence, succession, and calls for rebellion.  By equating Barack Obama with every dictator of the 20th and 21st Century, they give legitimacy to calls to action used against those dictators which include vandalism, armed resistance, avoidance of taxes, and I fear, assassination attempts.  These are all crimes, and that is the limit at which I say enough is enough.

If the whales of right-wing radio do not roll in their hate speech, factual errors, and clarion calls to violence, then they need Ombudsmen on the air who can counteract their vitriol for the betterment of political discourse.  In this, as in many things, I do not alone have the answers for how to strike a proper balance.  But because of my 'faith' in democracy and remembering how Rwanda devolved so quickly, I believe a good community decision on this issue can be made.