Even though I have some views on this, I'm weary of the endless debate about what liberals should do to win back American voters. I read the same polls as everyone else, and that's really all of us have to go on. The truth is that unless you have a remarkably large and diverse set of personal friends (you don't), your personal inclinations are hopelessly parochial. My only advice is not to kid yourself with selective poll readings. Suck it up and take the good with the bad.
However, I do have plenty of personal opinions, some based on my own moral compass and others informed by the evidence—and I'm happy to share them. Some would probably be good for the liberal movement and others wouldn't, but at least they aren't just guesses. Here is Shorter Kevin Drum:
Universal health care (strongly for it); illegal immigration (in favor of E-Verify and moderate toughening in general); trans issues (wary of gender-affirming care for teens but opposed to bans); globalization (still for it); China hawkery (on the fence); abortion rights (radically supportive); wokeness (hearts are in the right place but ditch the performative silliness); education (Black-white gap is disgraceful); Gaza etc. (on Israel's side with ever increasing reservations); religion (non-aggressive atheist); death penalty (slightly against); housing crisis (basically just a California problem); YIMBY (on the fence); guns (opposed but accept there's little we can do); climate change (of course it's real and serious); nuclear (mostly supportive); crime (not a growing problem); voter ID (sure, but first make national ID free and mandatory); prison sentencing (way out of control); safety net (a huge liberal success that's both popular and in little danger); long-term nursing care (pay 100% via Medicare); deficit/taxes (no choice but to raise taxes moderately on everyone); terrorism (will mostly die on its own over the next decade); AI (we will have legit AGI by 2033 and, yes, it will take over most of our jobs by 2040-50); democracy (not truly in any lasting trouble); cost of college (mostly a fake issue); affirmative action (prefer class-based preferences); Fox News (a cancer on the country, needs to be destroyed and the earth salted behind it); free speech (pretty close to absolutist, always ask "who's going to do it" if someone proposes an exception); COVID vaccines (100% safe and effective); permitting reform (probably needed, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater); Joe Biden (still think he was a pretty good president overall); government effectiveness (DOGE is a stupid sham, Congress needs to fix the rules).
Have I missed any big ones?
What should liberals do to win back the American voter? Be ready forTrump and the Republicans to f**k up.
"Be ready forTrump and the Republicans to f**k up"
I'd recommend being more pro-active than that. Trump is already fucking up (Gaetz for AG? Hegseth for SecDef? RFKJr. for anything? Tariffs to fight non-existent inflation?), and liberals need to be out there helping form the narrative that Trump is dangerously incompetent and trying to further surround himself by an even worse collection of suckup clowns with bad ideas than the last time around.
and how do you propose to get that message out to anyone who voted for Trump?
By talking about it publicly? By starting every conversation about Trump by noting that he is historically unpopular? And how his legislative priorities are tax cuts for billionaires and idiocy like ending rural post routes?
there is no "publicly" anymore. the media people consume is fragmented and there's no single location.
moreover, i very much doubt if there's any media that is consumed by the vast majority of trump voters that would ever allow your points into their output.
buttigieg just about gets away with some non-personal policy points on fox, but i am fairly sure that if he started clearly dissing Trump he would never be invited back.
Fucking up is all they've ever done. Waiting for them to do it still more in the hope that the national joke population who votes for them will suddenly notice is something a lot of conservative strategy actually hides behind.
They need to be addressed as crime.
Kind of amazing how much of that I’m totally in agreement with. Guess that’s why I’m here.
Things that I slightly disagree with:
Prison sentencing: Need to be tougher on “white collar” crime.
AI is coming like Kevin says, just not as fast as he thinks.
I agree about the "white collar" crime part, and also the related, "corporate officers who knew better yet still consciously made the decision that resulted in the wholesale destruction of lives/property/environment/etc. should go to prison for a very, very long time."
AI is here, and it's already fucking things up because idiots who can't be bothered to know what it can and can't do.
Agreed in that I am largely in agreement with Kevin. And yet I frequently read strong disagreement with him in the comments section. I would like to think that the majority of readers are in broad general agreement with him and the loud dissenters are simply a vocal minority...
I’m pretty similar to you, with a couple of exceptions, curious to hear your reasoning:
1) Housing is a huge problem here in WA also, though we’re (finally!) working on it.
2) I’m not nearly as sanguine as you about either democracy or the safety net. The GOP has both in their sights, and they have a lot of power now. I think a Hungarian style sham democracy is more probable than not for the next couple of decades, and the destruction of much of the safety net would be accomplished if that happens.
3) College costs do seem pretty high to me. I’m particularly concerned about the state institutions, which have been an important vehicle for class mobility.
I’m in the tribe, but I would like to see more on hugging a cat
With you.
If this were a series of multiple choice questions on a survey, I’d fill it out. I suspect I would not be hugely different than KD.
There's a bit of a "trust" issue with woke activists and Democratic politicians. The latter need to be able to trust the former not to sink them with unpopular rhetoric and issues during campaign season, and the former need to be able to trust private promises from the latter that they won't just backstab them once they're in office.
Nuclear's fine, but I really think it's the "Airships" of energy technology - useful but it won't have a large enough civilian niche that can support the costs of developing and using it en masse. Even if you get reasonable permitting and regulatory policy and handwave away public fears, it's going to be too expensive to be competitive with alternative sources of energy. Even in countries with favorable regulatory policy, nuclear is really expensive.
I'm pretty pro-YIMBY. Not "towers everywhere!", but as someone who grew up in a mixed suburban neighborhood that included duplex and a nearby apartment complex along with a ton of single-family homes, I really think that any suburban development should allow for duplexes/quadplexes/small two-story-6-unit apartment buildings on any land that allows for single-family housing. Bigger housing complexes can be built near arterial roads, and you can make them attractive to families with bigger floor plans, internal courtyard areas that function as small private parks for the folks living there, and really aggressive soundproofing between units.
On AI, I lean towards the Autor/Krugman Hypothesis that we'll get a weird phenomena where it automates white collar jobs first (at least those that aren't under legal barriers mandating employment), and the remaining jobs are either human contact or blue collar. Blue collar workers are pretty cheap or highly skilled on non-routine stuff, so it's not enough just to point at AI - you also need the robotics to be super-cheap compared to them as well.
Not sure how AI would have replaced my failed boiler. Or tiled my bathroom.
Exactly. That wouldn't just require AI - you'd need a pretty good robot as well, and they're not necessarily cheap.
At least with a tower you can be sure it's served with enough services and save space for parks and local businesses.
I see this 'nuclear is not competitive with alternative energy' all the time. But is it really true? To make an apples to apples comparison you also have to add in the cost of storage for alternatives plus the cost of updating the grid to handle all that power plus the time to get the necessary permits. Is that fair? If you don't that's the end of the conversation. OTOH, if you do, let us talk about the storage requirements for alternative energy it to be a viable solution.
To start: the United States consumed 94 quads of energy, or in more convenient units 27422 TWh, that is The U.S. consumed 75 TWh per day. How many days do we need? Well assuming seasonal load shifting, and the usual power outages, we need approximately 750 TWh, that is, 75,000,000,000 MWh. Yes, that's right seventy-five _billion_ megawatt hours.
Now, how much will it cost to add that much capacity? I don't know about you, but I have a vague suspicion that the cost for this much storage is enough to make nuclear, um, competitive with alternative energy. BTW, please check my arithmetic; I use my fingers to count and I could easily be off by an order of magnitude, perhaps more.
Best comparison of the costs of various sources of electricity: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
Sigh. Yes I am more than aware of this. No, they don't include the costs of providing for 75 billion MWh of storage. And no, I _don't_ agree that Lazard is the best comparison of costs for various sources of energy.
Look, I _just_ gave you a figure for the amount of energy that needs to be stored. And the arithmetic is pretty straightforward: Just the amount of energy the United States consumed in a year(in 2023) divided by 365 to get amount per day times ten days. Oh, I did have to convert from quads to SGI units, but that's it. If you disagree with any of that you need to say why, and provide your own figures. This isn't rocket science, this is a Fermi problem, straight back-of-the-envelope stuff.
Lazard is good, and definitely shows how even solar with storage is cheaper than nuclear. I'm not sure that addresses SoV's concerns, which I gather center on dispatchability. I think those concerns are overblown, and that we're so far from a 100% renewables grid right now that musing about what a hypothetical grid that was only solar-powered might require is a little silly.
But the main thing, for me, is that the only recently constructed nuclear units in the US were a complete shitshow, coming in a decade over schedule and at over $20 billion for just 2GW of capacity (bankrupting Westinghouse and nearly bankrupting Toshiba in the process). Investing in new nukes is thus a very, very dodgy prospect.
Even in South Korea, with effectively a state monopoly on power and very lenient treatment from regulators at the time, nuclear power came in over $2000/MWh - more than solar and storage.
India has done better, getting it down to about $1500/MWh with ultra-cheap labor. You occasionally see pro-nuclear folks point to the sub-$1000/MWh plants built in the 1960s, but those were demonstration plants that the utilities took a bath on in the US, and they were pretty shoddy at the time - low power capacity compared to what nuclear got after they started cracking down on safety and focusing on reliability at higher cost.
Solar is cheaper than nuclear _only_ if you solar gets to fall back on dispatchable power, i.e. fossil-fueled plants. Which, if you really believe that AGW is an existential catastrophe, you don't get to use.
Look, if you don't believe AGW is an existential threat, say so. Don't use it as an excuse to say the switchover must happen now, now, then turn around and yap about how it's cheaper than nuclear because it relies on fossil fuel backup. That is dishonest.
"The U.S. consumed 75 TWh per day. How many days do we need? Well assuming seasonal load shifting, and the usual power outages, we need approximately 750 TWh . . . please check my arithmetic; I use my fingers to count and I could easily be off by an order of magnitude, perhaps more."
Unclear why you think that we need 10x daily consumption in storage. If all we had were solar, wind, and hydro, and the sun didn't shine, the wind didn't blow, and the rivers didn't flow, for 10 days straight across the entirety of all interconnected grids, we'd have bigger problems than just power outages.
No, that's not literally 10 days of power, that's just a convenient way to frame it. The amount of energy is 750 TWh. How and when it gets distributed is an entirely different matter, it could be over 20 or 30 or 50 days. Don't forget that Americans want their power and they want it now, 24/7/365. That means you have to make allowances for high magnitude black swan disruptions and build out storage accordingly.
You have to, IOW, treat alternative energy exactly the same way you treat other energy sources; you don't get to say that people will just have to lump it and do without when those situations arise. If you don't do that, you're comparing apples to oranges, i.e. you're making an unfair comparison.
10-50 days of reserves is ludicrous. Nothing works that way. No gas plant stockpiles any gas onsite (let alone weeks or months' worth), and most don't have more than a few hours/days of backup diesel. Nor are dams operated such that they have "reserves" along those lines.
"you don't get to say that people will just have to lump it and do without when those situations arise."
Who the heck is saying that? Look, I get that you are hung up on intermittancy and dispatchability. It's an important problem with certain but not all renewables, but there are also ready solutions that include grid management and storage. And the sort of hyperextreme backup-on-backup-on-backup weeks of stored reserves you keep insisting is the only alternative to nukes is really, really weird.
Personally, I'm not even opposed to nukes. We have a lot on system already, and I don't think that they should be pushed off-system (certainly not the way fossil should). But new nukes are crazy expensive compared to other technologies, including zero-emission technologies like off-the-shelf solar and storage, or geothermal. That's just reality, and that goes a long, long way towards explaining why utilities aren't rushing to build nukes, and why banks aren't rushing to finance them.
You're showing your hand here. I said _ten_ days; now you're telling me to my face I said 10-50 days. I also didn't say anything about stockpiling 'weeks or months' of fuel.
In short, you're taking my figures and deliberately distorting them into a grotesque caricature of what I said. And you know, somehow I can't help but notice that while you pooh-pooh my guesstimate of the amount of storage required, you were very careful not to put your own concrete figures out there. So, how much storage do you think we need then? Five days? One day? Or is it less, perhaps much less? Something tells me that you think we need just as much storage as can make nuclear look bad and alternatives look good.
Don't get me started on the fact that getting to net-zero emissions with alternatives means that for 'grid management' to work, something like a million miles of new lines (along with the requisite towers, transformers, etc.) will have to be laid in the next twenty-five years. Do you know how many miles of new line were added between 2010 and 2020. You see where this is going: in fact, just 60,000 miles of new line were added in the 2010-2020 period. You're going to wait a lot longer than you think for your dream solution to manifest; at a rate of 6,000 miles/yr, it's going to take 150 years and more before it's done.
Now, let's start over, and let's try a little honesty this time, okay?
I find it hard to believe that we need 10 times the daily national usage in storage capacity. If a majority of production in the country is out for 10 days we're going to have way bigger problems.
We can also over-build a bit with solar if it's cheap enough, and use the grid to our advantage. Sun is usually shining somewhere during the day-time in the US.
I didn't say it was literally 10 days at 100% replacement. C'mon, use your head rather than say you find it 'hard to believe' because you're wedded to alternative energy.
you multiplied the average daily US load by 10, and then said we'd need that much in storage. That's honestly a pretty garbage way of analyzing the situation--you shouldn't be surprised if people find your argument puzzling.
Then make your own estimate. Don't tell me mine is garbage without throwing out your own, with accompanying justifications. You deliberately did not do this - don't be surprised if people find your cost estimates puzzling.
750 TWh= 750,000 GWh=750,000,000 MWh.
That's seven hundred and fifty million megawatt hours. Your fingers added two extra zeroes.
D'0h! You're right, or rather, almost right; _three_ extra zeros! Son't know why I got it in my head that the tera prefix means 10^15.
"Blue collar workers are pretty cheap or highly skilled on non-routine stuff"
Also - prices are relative. If productivity increases in white-collar jobs without increasing in blue collar jobs, then blue collar work will get more lucrative. And thus more desirable. My ancestors mined iron ore, my grandchildren may do the same.
Pretty much in agreement. I would add:
- Presidents are NOT immune from criminal prosecution. We live in a republic, not a monarchy
- Regulation of commercial activity should defer to government agencies implementing Congressional requirements ("Chevron") rather than having to be battled out in courts. This is an obvious disaster in the making.
- Related to the above, SCOTUS must have more checks on its behavior. They are also not kings, but servants of the country. Thomas and Alito have already done things that would get them removed from any other office.
- Money is not speech, and campaign finance must be regulated.
- The archaic US electoral system should be revised, as used to happen routinely. Replace electoral college, remove filibuster, handle all the non-voting territories.
Good list. I’d co-sign these. I would guess that Kevin would be willing to co-sign these too.
+2
Concur, and add living wage legislation.
I think DOGE is going to make a new cover for project 2025 and call it Musk's vision.
I think Democrats could stand to back AOC instead of propping up the geriatrics. Dems do best with young candidates.
I agree with almost everything KD said, with a couple of exceptions:
AI - As stated in a previous comment, I don't think it'll take over as soon as Kevin thinks it will. Though unmentioned, but one of Kevin's favorites, I don't think driverless cars will become the standard anytime soon either.
Democracy - Strongly disagree. The extreme right has achieved the unthinkable; unfettered control of all three branches of government. I fear that our country may suffer decades of abuse and mismanagement. (I hope I'm wrong and Kevin is right.)
Meh. Control of all three branches by one party has happened before, and quite recently. The D's had it in Clinton's first term, and the R's had it in GWB's first term. Voters never let it last for long.
Not parties. Extremists.
They really only needed the Presidency, and SCOTUS to declare Trump king. The Republican Congress just can’t wait to become a rubber stamp.
Adding: private equity needs to be either heavily constrained or killed by fire.
Self-dealing needs to be regulated. Paying out to the owners should never put the business in debt.
And balloon payments just shouldn't be legal.
"deficit/taxes (no choice but to raise taxes moderately on everyone)"
Permit me to revise: "moderately on everyone, and drastically on the wealthiest.
Remember, when the Greatest Generation was running the country, the top marginal income tax rate was 91%. R's tend to cite those years as the era when America was at its best (though without mentioning the taxes).
The decline in top marginal tax rate began under a Greatest Generation President - JFK.
Also:
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation
Completely agree, not because the deficit will cause the sky to fall ( it won't) but because we can have extreme concentration of wealth or we can have democracy but we can't have both.
+10
You can raise taxes on the bottom quantiles when they are earning at least a living wage.
Equal rights amendment.
Now more than ever.
Mao Mas Que Nunca!
Population/Climate Change
It took so many comments to list them?
Have you ever met a transgender person? If not it would benefit you greatly to actually meet one. To get a first hand perspective.
I've been commenting on his blog for more than twenty years. He's welcome to ask anything.
I transitioned after a year on hormone blockers - I wasn't a teen, I was the oldest in the youth group but I was also a bit of a late bloomer.
Pretty much everything people are wary about are things that don't follow the standards of care or straight up aren't done.
+1
Literal LOL on this juxtaposition:
“ Fox News (a cancer on the country, needs to be destroyed and the earth salted behind it); free speech (pretty close to absolutist…)”
Methinks you’re not really the free speech absolutist you think you are!!!
My advice: forget the list. Liberals are too much in love with lists. Focus on just one thing, a thing which may seem obvious but is actually diametrically opposed to conventional politics.
Just tell the truth.
Tell the truth about everything. And tell it a lot. Tell it when the PR professionals plead with you not to because it would be "insulting voters." Tell it when the consultants say it's not "on brand." Tell it when the polls reveal that it's not in line with "what voters believe."
And one other important caveat: tell the truth in ways that people can understand, but not "simplified" as most consultants advise. Explain when necessary, don't listen to the pros who say "if you're explaining, you're losing." Do NOT let an opponent's lie go unchallenged, even when the consultants say you shouldn't because it "amplifies" the lie.
Trump did us all a favor by revealing one thing that is simply not understood by the DC political class: people HATE politicians and the way politicians talk, and they will believe the most corrupt con man as long as he can successfully pose as and "outsider" who is "not a politician." It's a bitter irony that the man who is the most dishonest, the most corrupt, and the most fraudulent was able to sell himself as "honest" because he says things politicians are not supposed to say.
But it worked. And the only way to beat him is to steal that impression away from him. And the only way to do that is to be ACTUALLY honest and candid about everything. It may take years, but if Democrats have any hope of winning again, this is the only way.
I remember Walter Mondale telling the truth about taxes. That’s why he carried my home state.
Shouldn't this have been a graph, or maybe a bar chart? It would visually depict how liberal/conservative you are on all these issues. Or a scatter-plot. Yeah, that's it...
"Fox News (a cancer on the country, needs to be destroyed and the earth salted behind it); free speech (pretty close to absolutist)"
Do you have some way to reconcile these two things? Because for me, the former has shifted my views on the latter.
Free speech isn't freedom from responsibility.
Commercial speech isn't the same as personal speech.
We've never allowed libel or trademark infringement - why do we allow hate speech (which is libel) and misleading commercial speech?
Which bits of Fox's 24/7 stream would count as non-personal speech (other than advertising) ?
In 2020 a federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit against Tucker Carlson - who was still with FNC at the time - because responsible adults should know better than to take FNC talking heads seriously. From the judge's ruling:
"This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”"
Granted, this judge was herself a Trump appointee, but I think this particular ruling is solid. It's been obvious to me for years that FNC is doing entertainment, not news. The fact that they try to disguise it as news does not change what it is. And the fact that millions of Americans believe it is real does not make FNC legally liable, no more than people who think pro wrestling is real makes those guys liable.
I would change the "illegal immigration" category to just "immigration" and my position would be: "Need to be tougher on illegal immigration, provided that we loosen the rules to allow for more legal immigration."
Careful manipulation of immigration numbers could bring the country to ZPG, a goal very much worth pursuing. That would call for less legal immigration.
On criminal justice, we really need to speed things up. What is really corrosive is how many people commit crimes while their previous crimes slowly churn through the process.
It was almost unimaginable (to Americans) how quickly the UK dealt with rioters this past year, and no one thinks that the UK's criminal justice system is much more unjust than ours.
The right to a speedy trial needs to apply to both sides.
I'd add more money for IRS and childcare, though neither is as major as climate change, an issue which I would have missed without a previous comment.
This is a "big one:" it's 10-30% of our country. Utah and 11 other states are asking the US Supreme Court to hand over federally owned land they think they're entitled to. It's land that has belonged to every US citizen since it was seized from its tribal owners.
If we’re talking about Dems winning the White House none of this matters. No policy matters because the majority of voters don’t know anything about policy and don’t understand where any candidate stands on most of it anyway.
Like it or not for Dems to win they just need to run a charismatic white guy. Experience and policy stances don’t matter, but it would help to have some blue collar appeal. He’s getting older but if we run Bruce Springsteen in ‘28 we win in a walk. (Feel free to substitute some other popular white guy if you like. The principle is the same.)
No. For a Dem to win the White house, the economy needs to be in the toilet. 'The thin starve before the fat suffer', same as it ever was. If you want that to change, you need to get rid of the rich.
Really? That’s the only way they win? Why have a campaign then? If the economy’s good Dems can just sit it out and bank their money for the next one. And if it is in the toilet they can run anyone they want and it doesn’t matter.
Sorry, not buying it.
On the Fox News front, I think its a demand and not a supply issue. If you vanquish Fox News from earth then what?
- Do the Fox TV personalities not reappear (Glenn Beck et all) at another network, via podcast, or online?
- Do the people who like Fox now, not search out similar news?
- Does another network not arise and use a similar (economically successful) format?
Fox News is not so unique that it can't be replicated: heck Musk could make his version of Fox in a flash. I contend the problem is demand...
How can you simultaneously say you're in favor of cutting back on harsh criminal penalties but only be slightly against the death penalty? To borrow the arguments from others, you're saying some people are irredeemable, amirite?
I'm exactly the opposite. I don't think penalties across the board should be reduced, but many should be, especially non-violent "crimes". The primary reason why they're so harsh is because some folks are irredeemable and judges are given the leeway to make that determination. Serial... rapists, killers, arsonists, etc. Mandatory minimums remove a judge's ability to make those determinations, and as such, I think they're counter-productive to society in general.
I'm 99% against the death penalty. 1% of society is so toxic, dangerous, and vile that only through their deaths can they be redeemed.
Military? Almost no mention at all, even indirectly.
Veterans.
Feminism. (Did mention abortion.)
Child care.
Birth rates.
Quantity / type legal immigration.
Research funding. NIH / NASA / etc.
Nuclear triad.
Drug war.
It’s wild the things that were supposedly life or death issues that just disappeared or we don’t talk about it.
With regard to AI, I don’t see any basis for predicting AGI will be achieved soon. Way back in the mists of time, AI researchers thought that it might be possible to build an AGI by (1) figuring out how to make a computer solve one problem that requires intelligence, specifically playing chess, and (2) generalizing the chess program to be able to solve any problem, resulting in AGI.
That did not work out. We now have computers that are better at playing chess than any human, but the techniques don’t generalize very much. Yes, similar techniques can be used to build a program that can play checkers, but I think it’s clear at this point that no amount of research into developing better chess programs will get us to AGI.
Perhaps the basic approach--tackle a single problem domain and then generalize to get AGI--was sound but the specific problem domain--chess--was a bad choice. I don’t think so. AI has tackled lots of other problem domains over the years, and none of that work has been generalized to produce AGI.
What about large language models? They can converse on any topic, so you might argue that unlike chess playing programs, they do not address a single problem domain. But they do address a single problem: predicting the next token in a stream of text. They do this using a model based on existing texts and training inputs. An LLM trained only on texts predating 1905 isn’t going to develop the theory of relativity because it won’t be in its training data. So I predict that no level of investment in LLM’s will get us closer to AGI.
This doesn’t mean that AI won’t eliminate jobs. Nor does it mean that we won’t achieve AGI eventually.
For centuries, people knew that flying was possible (because birds could do it) but had no idea how humans could fly. AGI is similar. Humans have general intelligence. I see no reason to think that building an AGI is any more impossible than building an airplane. On the other hand, I don’t think that it’s possible to predict that AGI will be achieved by date X, for any X. That would require us to have an idea of how we will get from where we are now to where we have AGI. Since we have no idea what the path to AGI looks like, we cannot predict how long it will take to get there.
Your Gaza opinion needs more elaboration. Most Americans are pro-Israel but what does that really mean? I for one support Israel right to exist but in no way can I support the reckless bombing of Gaza.
For businesses that employ more than about ten people in any capacity all of them should be required by law to be in a union.
'Freedom of speech absolutist'.
Yes, but that still doesn't really give you a right to be wrong. If you had such a right you could plead it in court, but no one has ever tried that.
So, if you don't have a right to be wrong can't something like Fox News could be taken off the air by being demonstrably wrong with a general purpose of deception to mislead and defraud the public?
It's not like they're wrong now and then, they're really wrong all the time.