The Dying Weight of Hypocrisy

 

        It is an unfortunate trend of our discourse that the accusation of hypocrisy no longer has the effectiveness it once held. To see someone preach morals, fiscal responsibility, or social beliefs, only to be exposed as a hypocrite used to demean their character in the public eye, and thus lessen their ability to wield power. But with the rise of social media, and extreme political beliefs, the fact that some people do not practice what they preach has led to a depressing moral equivalency that is anything but true.
        I was exposed, once again, to a particularly frustrating brand of hypocrisy earlier today when I read about State Farm Insurance no longer accepting applications for homes in California due to high-risk issues draining their coffers. While this is a perfectly sensible move from a business-sense, it is a disaster for individual homeowners, the state, and economic strength as a whole. I began to search for other examples of this occurring and potential solutions other states have tried. This is not the first, nor will it be the last example of businesses getting out of certain industries due to profit margins shrinking. In situations like that, the most common solutions are: business coalitions form, or the government steps in to provide the necessary services. Florida, is one of these latter examples.
        Yes, the free state of Florida, where “Woke goes to die”, where businesses reign free and government is small, controls and operates the largest insurance company in the state. And thus, we have our latest example of empty hypocrisy. Florida sits on the gulf coast and is hit by several hurricanes per year. As a consequence, insurance companies began losing money due to severe weather over and over, with no lighter years to refill their coffers. So the business side made the rational decision, and either dramatically increased their rates, or left the state all together. So the state did what any competent government would do, and created two organizations to support the more than one million homeowners without insurance. In 2002, these organizations were merged into the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (CPIC). Through general taxes in the state, and some assistance from the federal government, Florida saw a large problem that impacted a small portion of their population and socialized those costs for the greater benefit of the state as a whole. A story quite at odds with Republican talking points.
        Governor Ron Desantis announced his bid for President of the United States over Twitter in the early weeks of the campaign. When the system wasn’t crashing or the hosts weren’t monopolizing the conversation, Governor Desantis hit all of the tired Republican talking points. Freedom is good, government is bad, and the “deep state” just enacts regulations “just to do it”. While the CPIC was not created under Governor Desantis’ term, it has both increased its budget each year he has been in office and its operating losses. One of the most successful programs in Florida, and perhaps the nation, has been a government-run insurance company operating at a continual loss to tackle a social issue not appeasing to private businesses. This is the same Governor Desantis that refused to accept Medicaid expansion under the ACA, and criticized reckless spending tactics while accepting the necessity of operating the CPIC at a loss because it was good for Floridians.
        Pointing out the Governor’s hypocrisy is nothing new, nor is it surprising the party of personal and fiscal responsibility endorses no consequences for Trump’s incitement of January 6th, or tax cuts to ease the debt of the US. But this seems like such a glaring example of what is wrong with some of these far-right conservative ideas, they do not take into account the realities of business or the vital role government plays in people’s lives. And the positions supported by the average voter seem to support the general idea, without understanding or considering the specifics. The almost-over debt fight is a perfect example of this conundrum. When a voter is asked whether the United States should reign in spending and take action on the national debt, it is widely supported. But when the choice comes down to what cuts should be made, the polling flips and voters do not want specific programs to be cut, on essentially every program except for military spending, which is split by party. There are those who may respond that government programs are fine if done properly, but that implies there is room for nuance in the Republican Party. There is not.

   #FitzFile