But who supports them?<\/p>\n
That has been demonstrated in living color over the last four years. Politely called low information voters<\/em>, evangelical voters, and less politely right-fringe voters<\/em> and, hearkening back to a happier time, denizens of the right-wing fever swamps<\/em>[1]<\/sup><\/a>, former Rep Joe Walsh (R-IL), who ran for the 2020 GOP<\/strong><\/em> (yes, GOP<\/em><\/strong>) Presidential nomination, had this observation<\/a>:<\/p>\n Then came Monday night: I went to a caucus and gave a speech to about 3,000 Iowa Republicans. I\u2019ve never been to a MAGA rally, but it sure felt like one. The president\u2019s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, spoke first and underscored the Trump bottom line: Perfect phone call; Democrats bad; keep America great. Crowd goes wild. I then got up to make my pitch, and \u2014 as you may have seen \u2014 it didn\u2019t go well. I got booed for saying that our party needed to do some soul-searching. I said the party is going to be a party of old white men unless we become more inclusive. More boos. I said we shouldn\u2019t be okay with a president who lies all the time. I said we need a president who\u2019s decent, not cruel. I said, you might enjoy Trump\u2019s mean tweets, but most people don\u2019t. I said we must be better than a president who makes every day about himself. Boos. And more boos. One woman yelled that she loves the president\u2019s tweets. The crowd cheered her.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not to belabor the point, but how do we produce a better electorate? I’m not talking about political brainwashing; I’m talking about producing people who are informed, not ill-informed.<\/p>\n Some of this is impossible, of course. There will always be idiots. Maybe I’m one of them, even though I try not to be.<\/p>\n Let’s start with an old, repealed Federal Communications Commission<\/strong><\/em> regulation, the Fairness Doctrine<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n Reimplementing this policy across both television and cable news sources would at least give the electorate a chance to see both sides of real issues.<\/p>\n But, having been to an evangelical church or two over the years, it’s worth also talking about the Johnson Amendment<\/em><\/a>. This amendment bribed churches with tax free status if they agreed not to endorse or oppose political candidates. This law has been the subject of a number of runarounds, from “voters’ guides” to defunding the IRS<\/strong><\/em> so it can’t go after churches that break the law.<\/p>\n And the evangelical churches hate it. I recall reading about Southern Baptist Convention pastors’ distaste for the law thirty years ago<\/strong>, feeling that they’re being discriminated against.<\/p>\n But let’s combine this regulation (Fairness Doctrine) and law (Johnson Amendment) into a law that states if endorsements or oppositions are made by churches<\/em>, not only are they no longer eligible for the tax exemption, but they must also give equal time to the other side<\/em> – at the pulpit<\/strong>.<\/p>\n That should cause some heartburn.<\/p>\n Insofar as legal changes go, that’s what comes right to mind for me. I look forward to seeing if any other governmental remedies for curing us of barstool blowhards<\/em> are successfully proposed and implemented.<\/p>\n But I think much of the rest of this rests with the free press. They must be willing to step up and point out lies – and label them as lies – regardless of the political affiliation of the publication and the candidate, party, or other entity intent on spreading lies.<\/p>\n And, of course, the hardest part: persuading the electorate to stop patronizing web sites of dubious worth for their news and opinions<\/em>. If you didn’t know about the call last weekend between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger, and how much of corruption it stunk, it’s time to change your news sources. You’re way, way out of touch<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Look: I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. If you’re getting your news from some free, marginal site that depends on clicks and ads for its revenue – it’s just like cotton candy. It may make you happy, but all that sugar doesn’t do a damn good thing for you.<\/p>\n But if you’re getting your news from a source that has a history of excellence, that does not make you happy, and that even charges you for the privilege of reading or watching it, then maybe you’re on the right track. I subscribe<\/strong> (that’s a technical term for paying money for the news, in case you’re too young to recognize the term) to The Washington Post<\/strong><\/em> (informally known as WaPo<\/strong><\/em>). Why? Because I love hearing about the madness of the Republican Party, the Covid-19<\/strong> pandemic, our disastrous response to the pandemic, or climate change?<\/p>\n No.<\/p>\n But the fact that I’m not happy means I’ve not made the sloppy intellectual mistake of satisfying my emotional urges. It means I have the discipline to seek out truth, to not be taken in by the con men and grifters who lead the megachurches and tele-churches, to face facts and not believe fictions that make me happy.<\/p>\n And not wallow about in victimhood.<\/p>\n If you’ve been getting your news and opinion from Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, The Epoch Times<\/em><\/strong>, or one of many others, I wish you the dedication to discard those addictions and step up to a better source of news.<\/p>\n In light of what happened today, that’s your duty. Come join the rest of us. We’re waiting for you.<\/p>\n <\/a>1<\/sup> The undiplomatic epithet distributed by Hillary Clinton, who also came up with the term deplorables<\/em>. It’s beginning to look like she’s been accurate all along.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Well, we all know – or should know – about the chaos in Washington, DC, today, as the Proud Boys and other Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol, killed a woman, and tried to intimidate Congress into giving Trump his frantic desires. To their credit, it appears Congress will dispense \u2026 Continue reading ![](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/b\/bb\/FCC_Seal_2020.svg\/210px-FCC_Seal_2020.svg.png\")
The\u00a0fairness doctrine<\/b>\u00a0of the United States\u00a0Federal Communications Commission<\/a>\u00a0(FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of\u00a0broadcast licenses<\/a>\u00a0to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was\u2014in the FCC’s view\u2014honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the\u00a0Federal Register<\/i> in August 2011.\u00a0[Wikipedia<\/strong>]<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n