If you put it that way, I could see how both sides "are the same"

[RAB910]

[czarjak]

1. Immaterial to some.

[lastlib]

2. Add "Nixon" to the last paragraph.....

There's more, but that'll do.

[Freethinker65]

3. Nixon most likely excluded because he created the EPA, which doesn't fit the social good only by Dems narrative.

Though I agree with the sentiment, there are lots of problems with not particularly well thought out memes/shared Twitter posts like this.

[Elessar Zappa]

4. I think it's a very true meme.

The Republicans have done very little for this country since Hoover. Pretty much all major accomplishments that help people are due to the Democrats. And Nixon was a crook, btw, his founding of the EPA doesn’t make up for that.

[Freethinker65]

5. It was suggested Nixon be added to the list, I was responding as to why, perhaps he was excluded.

Everyone knows Nixon left office in disgrace.

[sop]

6. Your point about Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency is well taken, but...

Apart from constantly calling for tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate de-regulation and the privatization of the commons - historically the only policy solutions Republicans have offered for every problem facing America - what have Conservatives actually done to improve the lives of average Americans?

[Freethinker65]

7. Thanks for making my point! Comparing policies to policies (or people to people) is much more effective

I was going to include that in my initial response, but it was not necessary.

Instead I said I agreed with the sentiment.

[aggiesal]

9. I've asked this same question to conservatives I know & I've asked here as well ...

I only came up with 3 things that a (R) administration has enacted that improved the lives of the average American.
1) Eisenhower - Interstate Highway Act
2) Nixon - Environmental Protection Act
3) Bush I - Americans with Disabilities Act

There may be more, but I can't think of any.

[sop]

10. Today's GOP might support the Interstate Highway Act, but certainly not the other two.

Republicans still maintain supply-side economics (low taxes, de-regulation, free trade and privatization) help average working Americans by spurring economic growth that benefits everyone. Empirical economic data (from 1980s to the present) tends to disprove that. Trickle down economics seems to only help those at the top.

[ShazzieB]

17. ...

[CrispyQ]

11. IIRC Bush 2 was concerned about pandemics & added to & strengthened the pandemic programs that Bill Clinton started.

Seen on Facebook:

We're going to have to retire that old phrase, "Avoid it like the plague," cuz obviously we don't.

[druidity33]

12. Bush 2...

PEPFAR.

[aggiesal]

13. I knew that GW McIdiot had given money to countries in Africa ...

to fight AIDS.
But didn't know he created a program for this.
First time I've heard PEPFAR.
Thanks, learned something knew today.

You used your superpowers for good today.

[Kennah]

15. If Nixon were the worst thing ever to come outta the GOP ...

[Ohioboy]

8. Republicans are also responsible for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting

Getting rid of the fairness doctrine allowed the right-wing media to go unchallenged when it came to presenting their democracy- killing opinions as if they were news.

[TwilightZone]

16. It wouldn't have made much difference once cable news took off.

The fairness doctrine wouldn't have applied to social media or cable news, including Fox News.

It also wouldn't have impacted people like Rush LImbaugh. Individuals were not required to provide balance on their own shows. The requirements, which were just FCC regulations that were not required to be enforced, would have only affected the stations that aired them.

[Ohioboy]

18. Yes and no

The Fairness Doctrine could have been made to apply to cable networks if it hadn't been done away with before cable became a much bigger thing. The Fairness Doctrine was merely a way of providing time, if wanted, for opposing view. That concept could have easily been extended to cable, which is merely another way of broadcasting which uses both physical wires and airwaves to achieve information transmission.

Social media already has a type of fairness doctrine built in because it goes both ways. Both sides can be represented as you can respond with a "like" or a comment. You can "tweet" back and have dialogue. Opposing views can be offered on the spot.

The Fairness Doctrine wasn't designed to stop guys like Limbaugh. It was designed to allow for opposing view to guys like Limbaugh. A broadcast outlet couldn't just be a total one-sided lie machine without the truth at least having a chance.

[TwilightZone]

21. "could have been made to apply to cable "

But it wasn't and was unlikely to ever be because of the FCC's limited regulatory abilities. The fairness doctrine as some magic wand was always a bit of a myth. Because enforcement was optional, it was more often used as a political tool to shut down content rather than expand it. It also had unintended consequences, like allowing Big Tobacco to counter news reports that smoking caused cancer with propaganda.

"Social media already has a type of fairness doctrine built in because it goes both ways. "

That's not even remotely true, because the platforms aren't regulated and people like Musk can shape them in pretty much any way they wish. Suppressing opposing viewpoints and promoting bigotry and ignorance, as Musk is quite clearly doing, are the opposite of balanced. You think X/Twitter is "fair" at the moment? Facebook during the 2016 or 2020 campaigns or when they were collecting data and selling it to the GOP?

"The Fairness Doctrine wasn't designed to stop guys like Limbaugh"

Again, enforcement was optional, so as far as people like Limbaugh go, it was mostly useless. The stations could be required to provide counter-programming, but there were usually no strings attached. They could broadcast a counter-point at 2:00am and technically meet the requirements, but often weren't even required to do that.

If it couldn't address cable news and couldn't address social media and couldn't deal with people like Limbaugh, it didn't really matter if it was in place or not once all of those proliferated. An entirely new regulatory framework would need to be created to address those, with much tougher regulations and media requirements.

Lessons for social media from the Fairness Doctrine from the Columbia Journalism Review:

https://www.cjr.org/opinion/social-media-fairness-doctrine.php

[Ohioboy]

22. I can see your point

It had its time when there weren't so many outlets.
I guess our only hope is that people might vary their sources and search for the truth on their own. Those who get their information from places like Newsmax and FOX certainly aren't getting the whole picture.

[PTL_Mancuso]

20. When you combine the end of the Fairness Doctrine and its ability to propagandize endlessly. . .

. . . with Citizens United and HUGE tax breaks for the wealthiest . . .

Why, then you have a no-fail recipe for a fascist takeover. And it's just about ready to eat . . .
Us!

[tirebiter]

14. The country was liberal, as was congress, a lot

of liberal legislation was being passed. Nixon had some red pill sections added. EEOC was set up, and Panetta.then liberal Republican was put in charge. Seeing how Nixon used it, Leon dropped out to come back to office later as a liberal Democrat. Luckily for us and Bill Clinton he was still good at math

[redqueen]

19. You're selling rethugs short

They're also responsible for defunding the government so they can get rid of the new deal programs they hate, the war on drugs (which is a war on the poor), for preventing us from having a decent healthcare system, for preventing any action on climate change, for destabilizing south America by funding right wing terrorists and just ducking with them in general using the CIA, responsible for the anti-intellectualism that ushered in Palin and now MAGATs... The list is endless