It's amazing someone can write this stuff with apparent no self-awareness of its applicability to the things they apparently support.
The "dumbing down of America" has been implemented, amplified, and weaponized by the left and their political supporters in teacher's unions. When "Johnny can't read", name the three coequal branches of the US federal government, or add two 2-digit numbers without drawing a bunch of boxes and lines; but, uncritically regurgitates leftist dogma, THAT is where the "dumbing down" takes root.
"Allowing a network to lie-spread disinformation brainwashing those too lazy or mentally incapable of actually reading and researching facts is not free speech". HELLO? How many "senior official says" and "person with knowledge of" stories 2016-2020 about President Trump or his family turned out to be false? Not to mention the whole Russian Collusion Delusion that was weaponized by 44 and Comey to trigger the Special Counsel, based on Clinton Campaign and DNC opposition research, specifically to distract from Clinton's gross negligence in handling classified information through her use of a personal email server for ALL of her official business? Was none of that "Deadly Dangerous" or is it okay if a network(s) "lie-spread disinformation" that you like?
I'm not sure how you can ascribe any culpability to Fox News for "hundreds of thousands of deaths due to COVID"? Did only Fox News watchers get infected and die? No, you'd probably celebrate that.
Tell me, do you think Democrats who overwhelmingly voted to acquit Bill Clinton are guilty of "Dereliction of Duty", "Obstruction of Justice", and "Misuse of Power"?
"Republicans opened the door for Russia interference"??? You don't assign that a year (Russia has ALWAYS tried to interfere in our elections). Since you mentioned Republicans "welcomed Trump with open arms" I will comment as if this comment applies to 2015-2016. Russia's interference that election cycle was primarily through social media advertising buys and an amplifying army of fake accounts. I doubt you could count a handful of Republicans in any of the big social media companies (Facebook, Google, and Twitter). Then there's the question of who was the Chief Executive who could have wielded power to mitigate that Russian interference? Right, it was 44 who chose to do next to nothing. The "excuse" given later was that Obama didn't want to appear to be interfering in the election. I believe the truth is, like all of the establishment, Obama calculated that any Russian interference (whether to sow division or to more specifically help Donald Trump) would not be enough to prevent Hillary's coronation.
He was right in one sense. Russian interference had no effect on the election. Obama and the establishment failed to recognize that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Her policy ideas were absurd. Plus, Americans just didn't like her. Consequently, she lost the most winnable election in US presidential history.
So, explain to me again how "Republicans opened the door for Russian interference"?
You paint the entire GOP with a pretty broad brush as a "bunch of greedy racist low life [sic] citizens". Do you have one example of a current, PROMINENT Republican (US Representative, US Senator) who voiced approval of the January 6 incursion on the Capitol?
As a nice counter-project, can you find one prominent Democrat (US Representative, US Senator) who denounced Representative Maxine Waters imploring protesters in Minnesota to get more confrontational if they didn't get their preferred verdict in the Derek Chauvin murder trial?
Do you think only Republicans use control of State Houses to gerrymander?
Do you think it was greedy CEOs, professional athletes, and celebrities that put Donald Trump in the White House? It is rich, coastal elites that overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Plus, there aren't many "paupers" on either side of the political aisle in Congress.
Is it more racist to apply "the soft bigotry of low expectations" to a particular racial group's alleged inability to acquire an ID they would need for most aspects of modern life or to require all citizens present that type of ID to vote?
Is it more racist to craft policies perpetuating generational dependence on the government or to lift barriers to entrepreneurship put in place by government bureaucrats while allowing all citizens to keep more of their hard-earned money instead of sending it to a bloated, inefficient federal government?
Have you ever watched Fox News? They have openly liberal news anchors (Chris Wallace) and opinion makers (Juan Williams) among others. They regularly interview Democrat lawmakers and policymakers. Reporters ask probing questions and challenge responses when they contradict past positions, current policy, current actions, etc. They also ask questions of how and why positions of Republicans and Democrats differ on a subject.
The liberal broadcast networks are a little better. But, you don't see any of that on the liberal cable stations (CNN and MSNBC). So-called "Republicans" on their shows are usually to the left of Nancy Pelosi. Republican politicians who venture on their shows are bombarded with Democrat talking points, usually in an accusatory manner as to why they don't support the OBVIOUSLY more enlightened Democrat position.
Finally, both parties have abused the Fairness Doctrine (and its predecessors) https://www.cato.org/article/sordid-history-fairness-doctrine
Do you think a new, expanded version would be any different? Do you really want to empower politicians, who generally crave more power, another lever to quash opponents?
Plus, how would you envision the new and expanded Fairness Doctrine applying to "info-tainment" shows which largely did not exist before the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned (e.g. Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, Cuomo Prime Time, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Politically Incorrect, etc.).
You might agree with them now. But, unless you could have accepted President Trump applying the Fairness Doctrine predominantly to those he called "Fake News", you may want to reconsider your position.
