The bizarre ban against radio talk show host Michael Savage which precludes Savage from being able to enter Great Britain, has got a lot of people scratching their heads. Why would a man who is admittedly opinionated and bombastic, be lumped into a category with racists, terrorists and killers? To anyone who has ever listened to Savage's show, the announcement by the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, that country's top homeland security official, that Savage's rhetoric exemplifies "the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," seems to indicate that Britain has fallen over a precipice of political correctness. Smith explained her actions by citing that entry into Great Britain is a privilege.
"Coming to this country is a privilege," she said. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded."
What is dangerous about Smith's inclusion of Savage is this talk of values, standards and rules, as a criteria for admission to a supposedly free nation. It is consistent with the move away from the rule of law toward the rule of arbitrary opinion that seems a favorite tactic of the left. For me, this decision is a major stain on my personal perception of a country I have always thought of as America's best friend in the world.
But what if it is more than political correctness gone mad? What if it is a well thought out tactical move in a game of cynical politics? What if the inclusion of Savage was based less on what Savage in particular has said, but rather on what conservative talk show hosts as a group have said, and will say in the future? Think about it for a second. It's not so far fetched.
Both the United States and Great Britain are currently governed by the left. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seemed overly solicitous of Obama during the President's recent trip to England. Earlier snubs by Obama when Brown was in Washington, D.C., seemed to fan the desire of Brown to gain Obama's public acceptance.
But aside from the relationship of the two top guys, it is easy to conclude that the staffs of the two world leaders would have a lot of common ground to talk about. It isn't hard to imagine that the "political" types from each administration have put their heads together to discuss some of the strategies and tactics they might pursue to further the cause of progressivism throughout the world. If you don't think such talks occur, then you need to get out in the real world a bit more.
So imagine one meeting where in the spirit of quid pro quo, somebody from Obama's team asks somebody from Brown's team if they could get some help making the case for the re-imposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
"Gee, what could anyone in Britain do to aid in such an endeavor," they might be asked?
"Well, if you could determine that one of America's right-wing talk show hosts was too dangerous to enter your country because of the hate he spews," they might respond, "then I think it would go a long way in assisting us in convincing the independents and moderates of our country that what is being said on Talk Radio is dangerous in our country, too."
Of course, going after Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity would be too obvious. Better to target someone near, but not at the top of the radio world. Seems more credible that way, you know.
Who knows what the British liberals might want in return? Perhaps it could be something as simple as a better gift for the Brown's than a bunch of DVDs in the wrong format to be viewed across the pond. Who knows?
But this action by Brown's subordinate needs to be viewed with a very cynical eye, and should not be tolerated by the American public.
