John Edwards has a problem with Rupert Murdoch, so he wants Mr. Murdoch to have a problem with the Federal Communications Commission as he completes his deal to acquire Dow Jones.

To that end, the former North Carolina senator is agitating for his fellow Democrats to “take the necessary steps to stop the merger.” One Democratic member of the FCC, Michael Copps, who addressed the progressive YearlyKos convention in Chicago yesterday, even looks ready to help create a problem, telling Mr. Murdoch in an overly excited written statement issued Wednesday, “Not so fast!” and calling for the FCC to “immediately conduct a careful factual and legal analysis of the transaction.”

There would seem to be no legitimate means by which the feds could scotch the News Corp.-Dow Jones deal under current law (full disclosure: This columnist’s wife works for the Wall Street Journal). But Mr. Edwards’s puffing and posturing is significant for another reason: It cuts to the core of the Democratic Party’s disdain for free and unbridled public discourse and its desire to use the power of the state to “level the playing field” by silencing conservatives.

Now, to be sure, Mr. Edwards’s attack on Mr. Murdoch has another important target: Senator Clinton. The same campaign press release that attacks the News Corp. deal also calls on “all the Democratic presidential candidates to refuse contributions from News Corp. executives and to refund any contribution they have already taken.” This applies primarily to New York’s junior senator, who has taken thousands of dollars in donations from News Corp. executives, including Mr. Murdoch. But it is also indicative of a larger trend in Democratic thinking, which casts conservatives as part of an implacable noise machine — to use a favorite phrase of the net roots left — which must somehow be quieted. The strategy to achieve that peace and quiet has a number of prongs.

One prong is campaign finance legislation. Liberals long believed that by curbing corporate donations and by muzzling independent groups like the NRA and the pro-life lobby, they could gain a leg up in the electoral process. It hasn’t quite worked out that way, as conservative groups have adjusted to the new regulatory environment (see: Boat Veterans for Truth, Swift) while some resurgent liberal groups have found themselves hobbled. What’s more, the Supreme Court now looks likely to roll back much of the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill.

The next prong, which many Democrats have moved on to, is attempting to bring back the ill-named Fairness Doctrine. Formalized in 1949, but with roots going back before the existence of the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required that broadcast stations provide equal time to opposing viewpoints on political issues. What this meant, in practice, was that radio and TV stations broadcast little political commentary, for fear of triggering the regulations. When the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out by the FCC in 1987, under President Reagan, it ushered in the current era of talk radio — an era dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and, more recently, Sean Hannity.

Many liberals, however, are appalled by this Rush- and Hannity-dominated era. “These are public airwaves, and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation,” said Senator Feinstein, a Democrat of California, who says she is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored. Senators Durbin and Kerry, Democrats of Illinois and Massachusetts, have stated that they favor its return. Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. And last month, the Democratic Senate beat back an attempt by Republican lawmakers to introduce a bill to bar the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

This support for the Fairness Doctrine, however, would seem to betray a fundamental lack of confidence in the appeal of liberal ideas. If the audience demanded more liberal talk show hosts, the market would provide them. The most likely scenario is that progressives simply consume news differently than conservatives, favoring blogs, public radio, and friendly mainstream news outlets. But the Democratic base seems to hunger for darker explanations.

Which brings me to the last, and most laughable, prong of the Democratic strategy to combat the “conservative media”: whining. Here, as elsewhere, Mr. Edwards is the pioneer, having led the Democratic field in dropping out of a Fox News-sponsored Democratic primary debate. “The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” Mr. Edwards said in a statement yesterday.

Fine. Go and hide from the opposition. Some Republicans are even following suit by threatening to boycott a CNN-sponsored debate because the network is too liberal. It’s childish on both sides. But at least it’s better to hit the mute button on your remote than to try to mute your opponents with the heavy hand of government.