C-Span: America's Mirror

C-SPAN: America's Mirror

C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Access to News) celebrated its 25th anniversary last week.

Until I began to tune in now and then to C-SPAN’s call-in show “Washington Journal” I was always puzzled why politicians pander unabashedly in their speeches by using a variation of the phrase, “the wisdom of the American people.”

If you’ve ever listened to any media call-in show, you know there’s no shortage of opinion on anything. I mean anything! And that was the secret of what turned an unlikely, frumpy, unexciting pseudo government TV network into a 24-hour, advertising-free media phenom.

Politics, economics, the law, origins of the universe, planetary phenomena, nuclear physics, bio-engineering, foreign affairs. . . you name it, there are hundreds--nay thousands--of tuned-in experts waiting out there, ready to opine on any subject you can dream up.

In fact, it’s a safe bet to suggest that C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Access to News), a TV format that, but for its daily call-in show, would have folded within months of its birth for being the world’s most boring concept: showing hours-long live shots of soundless, dead legislative chambers. But Brian Lamb, the “father” of what most pundits had preordained as a gigantic TV flop, discovered the talk-show/call-in format that would attract not only a respectable number of viewers, but millions of them—for one reason only: its seven-day-a-week, three-hour early morning show, featuring personas of the entire social spectrum. They come prepared to appear on camera and present information relative to their area of expertise and then to field questions and opinions—mostly opinions as it turns out—from that fecund body of informed citizens who wait patiently on phone-hold for their brief moment of fame when they publicly engage an renown expert. Many of them are convinced that their presentations are of vital importance to the country (or even the world, on occasion) by prefacing their oratory with exhortations such as "Americans--listen to me. It's important for the future of your country."

The guest experts must come prepared for more than just sharing their knowledge with America--they must be prepared to defend their expertise against the “citizen experts” who call in from Arkansas, Illinois, California, Texas, Indiana, Alabama . . . from anywhere a phone connection can be made to one of C-SPAN’s three call-in lines. (It’s curious to note that these lines are not toll-free, but that doesn’t seem to bother callers who sometimes must queue on hold for up to 30 minutes or more, before the moderator either ushers in their live calls, or run out of time, dashing the hopes of the expectant experts.) And now that satellite radio is up and running, C-SPAN’s reach continues to expand to every earthly niche!

To illustrate, here's an imaginary snippet of a few minutes on the Washington Journal:

C-SPAN Moderator: This morning our guest for the next hour is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, recently installed by the United States Senate to replace the recently deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist. This morning we’ll be discussing the professional qualifications of nominees to the nation’s highest court, the United States Supreme Court—most especially his personal experience of undergoing partisan criticism of Senators during the approval process. Our lines are open now. Good morning, Justice Roberts. You’re a seasoned lawyer and judge in a lower court and, as many of your admirers have called you, a life-long student of and passionately dedicated to the law. You’re also known as a solid conservative voice. Please tell our viewers what you believe will be the most important factor to becoming an effective Justice—even leading the eight other Justices, all of whom have years of seniority over you on the Court.

Justice Roberts: Good morning. It’s a privilege to be able to discuss with your C-SPAN viewers and listeners my recent appointment to the Supreme Court and my philosophy I will apply whenever possible. To begin with, your audience probably already knows that I consider myself to be first and foremost a jurist who does not believe it’s in my place to make new law, but simply to determine whether the law that has been challenged and placed before me is within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

Moderator: You’ve been described as a “strict constructionist,” would that be an accurate characterization of your judicial philosophy?

Roberts: Yes, that would pretty well sum up my outlook. You see, the three branches of our government-—the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial-—were created to provide a balanced, three-legged stool, as it were, upon which our nation could sit comfortably without fear of falling off. If the Court decides to initiate new law that departs from what the Legislative Branch—the Congress—has created, then it has fitted the stool with one larger leg than the other two, causing it to become unstable.

Moderator: Aren’t you saying, in effect, that while the Court has oversight over the other two branches, no one has oversight over the Court? In other words, the Court could, if it wanted, become the dominant voice of government. Before you comment, Justice Roberts, we have several callers waiting. Let’s take the first call from Sacramento, California. Hello, Sacramento—it’s very early where you are. What question do you have for Justice Roberts?

Sacramento Leftist: Look, Mr. Roberts, I don’t mean to call your hand so early in your tenure as a Supreme Court Justice, but it’s not my fault that you risked coming before the American people on C-SPAN this morning--it’s important you know how 50 percent or more of the American citizenry feels about you. I don’t mind telling you to your face, sir, you’re nothing but another tool of George W. Bush’s fascist government. Your role—-and don’t try to deny it—-is to set up a kangaroo court to do Herr Dubya’s bidding, to make sure the law is shaped to insure that he and his criminal cronies keep their grip on our government.

Moderator (interrupting gently): Caller, what’s your question for Justice Roberts? Let’s try to focus on asking questions of the Justice.

Sacramento Leftist: O.K. then let me ask you Herr Puppet Justice: Was it Herr Bush himself or his SS-minister, Oberpropaganda-Fuehrer Karl Rove who found you somewhere in the woodpile? So when do you intend to pass a law declaring the Constitution suspended like Adolf Hitler did?

Roberts: Caller, I appreciate your concern for our government, but I think you’ve vastly over-interpreted President Bush’s view of his role, much less mine. As for your slurs, equating the president with Nazi Germany and Hitler, I think most Americans don’t share your rather extreme viewpoint. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll place your question about suspending the Constitution in my outbox labeled “Irrelevant.”

Moderator: The next caller’s from Bluefield, West Virginia. Good morning, Bluefield.

Caller from Bluefield (pronounced drawl): Thenk yew fer takin’ mah call, C-SPAN. Ah’m a furst-time callah, so ah’m a tad nervous, O.K.?

Moderator: Welcome. Take your time, no need to be nervous.

Bluefield Caller: Well, I jes’ wanted to tell the new Judge thet he’s got a big job afore him, considerin’ thet thangs in Washington is all messed up, whut with them Liberal folks thet hate their own country, and all. I jes’ hope the Judge’ll set the record straight and throw them commies outta there. Thet's all I gotta say. God bless and good luck, Judge.

Moderator: Callers, for the record, the proper title for Mr. Roberts is “Justice,” not “judge.” Next call is from Phoenix, Arizona. What’s your question for Justice Roberts, Phoenix?

Caller from Phoenix: Good morning, Mr. Chief Justice. It’s a privilege and pleasure to talk to you—we have a lot of faith that you will restore the Supreme Court to its proper place—as the arbiter for the people, not as our nanny. My question for you Mr. Justice is this: We had a recent case in Scottsdale having to do with eminent domain, that is, we were hoping the recent Keho ruling that allows communities to obtain properties if they are deemed . . . .

Roberts: Yes, I’m familiar with that ruling, and . . . .

Caller from Phoenix: Well, I know you are, because I listened to your testimony before the Senate Committee on Keho. But here’s what I want to tell you. Our state Supreme Court ruled against the community, citing Arizona state law that evidently supersedes federal law.

Roberts: Yes, that’s correct, states may make their own decisions on whether and how eminent domain will be applied—they’re not obligated to follow the Keho decision and are largely unaffected by the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision, unless states should rule in a way that contravenes their own constitutions. This ruling, Number 04-108 issued in July this year, simply allows states the latitude, should they want to exercise it, to exercise their powers of eminent domain in a broader context than the Fifth Amendment meant it.

Caller from Phoenix: So you condone the Keho ruling, do you?

Roberts: Condone? Not necessarily. In fact, the Keho ruling probably exceeds the language of the Fifth Amendment. Let me explain . . . .

Caller from Phoenix: There you go, Mr. Justice, that’s what happens to you people. Once you taste power, you immediately turn against the people. Look, I had to study the Fifth Amendment in a government course I took for my AA degree two years ago, and . . . .

And so goes the remainder of Justice Roberts' hour (as well as the remainder of the three-hour talk show): It's the rare caller who asks a question that recognizes the expertise of the guest. Despite their obvious lack of knowledge, they would not recognize the fact—they’re all exercising their “knowledge” (and their First Amendment rights--they're all very much up on the First Amendment, even if the other 26 Amendments would draw a blank from them) and don’t hesitate to lay it all out there, convinced that approximately 8 million listeners are absorbing every syllable of their enlightened utterance.

It’s amazing to listen to America on C-SPAN—any day of the week, and no matter what the topic of discussion might be. I now know why politicians pander to the people when they preface their remarks with something like, “I defer to the wisdom of the American people.”

They’d better, by God, if they want to get elected!