Two recent events have given liberals an opportunity to make problems for themselves.
The tussle over South Carolina's practice of flying the Confederate flag atop the state capitol has become the Super Bowl of liberals' unending sensitivity competition. They say the flag must come down because it is deeply offensive to a significant portion of South Carolinians, and it is wrong for government unnecessarily to lacerate the sensibilities of its constituents. In both halves of that proposition, liberals make a good point. But how can they make it while advocating taxpayer funding for abortions — for something far more offensive to far more people than is the Confederate flag?
On another matter, a lot of disapproval was expressed by liberals and conservatives when it was reported that the Office of National Drug Control Policy had worked with television networks to get anti-drug messages into the scripts of entertainment programs. This is a matter about which thoughtful people can disagree. But what is one to make of the New York Times editorial which said that the practice "should disturb anyone who believes in the need for all media . . . to remain free from government meddling"?
There is an almost comic lack of self-awareness in this thought, coming from editorial writers who adore proposed campaign-finance legislation that would meddle with the media by imposing government rationing of political communication. For example, the Times favors the Shays-Meehan bill that includes a provision (also included in some versions of the McCain-Feingold bill) to prohibit incorporated groups (other than federal political action committees) from even mentioning the name of any member of Congress or other candidate in a radio or TV ad within 60 days of a primary or general election. Does the New York Times consider that "meddling" by government? If not, why not?
For Mr. Will's archived columns, click here.