Cromwell

David Jolly has a plan to replace private property insurance in Florida with a government plan. It is a bold proposal. Is it a good one?

There is, or should be, a strong presumption against socializing anything. The relevant criteria are as follows:

1. HOW PERVASIVE IS THE PROBLEM? CAN FLORIDA PROPERTY OWNERS AVOID IT? While the degree of risk is obviously much higher along the coasts, all Florida property owners have at least some exposure to serious damage from wind in tropical events.

2. HOW SERIOUS IS THE PROBLEM FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS? Premiums have skyrocketed. Some Florida homeowners can no longer afford to live in the state. By and large, however, the population has adjusted.

3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS THE MARKET ALREADY REGULATED? IS THIS REALLY A BIG CHANGE IN POLICY? Florida has a state-operated property insurance program already, and insurance is highly regulated. This apparently revolutionary change would be akin to moving to “Medicare for All” from the public option.

4. IS THIS A MARKET FAILURE THAT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN REMEDY? Insurance companies are simply responding to the additional risks created by climate change. That is a problem created by the government, not the companies. Government action to improve resilience is probably a better use of public funds than the creation of a socialized insurance program.

The bottom line here is that the argument for a socialized system is reasonable, but not compelling. Even if Jolly wins, however, we’ll never find out; the Florida Legislature is never going to embrace his proposal.

Trump 1.0 is surely entitled to some credit for emphasizing the impacts of the massive Chinese trade surplus on the rest of the world. The surplus is due less to “communism” than to Xi’s preference for producers over consumers and his desire to stifle opposition to China by making the rest of the world dependent on its products. Logically, Trump 2.0 would have responded to the surplus by persuading American consumers to accept a regime of short-term austerity and by uniting the rest of the world against unfair Chinese trade practices. He did neither; he backed down in the face of Chinese retaliation and market unrest and decided to bully the rest of the world for no obviously good reason.

So what’s the new plan, Stan? Trump is putting all of his eggs into the AI basket in the hope that it will restore American economic supremacy. Exactly how the benefits of AI can be confined to American producers and how the negative impacts of Frankenstein’s monster can be kept under control appear to be of no concern to him.

The gubernatorial races in Florida and Ohio are remarkably similar. In both cases, a member of a racial minority with strong MAGA credentials is running in a red state. Both races are uncomfortably close. Both bear watching between now and November, because a coalition of Democrats, independents dissatisfied with Trump’s record, and racist Republicans could prevail over the MAGA man.

There are differences. Ramaswamy is running brutally personal attacks on his opponent, who is responding in kind; Byron Donalds is focusing more on the issues, particularly property insurance. Ramaswamy also has an extensive record of disparaging American workers; Donalds doesn’t. Finally, Ramaswamy only pretends to be a reactionary; in reality, he’s a CL. His ultimate objective for Ohio is to drown state government in a bathtub. It is unlikely that many state residents who understand that objective agree with it.

I make no prediction on either race. They’re too close to call.

Trump’s design style is a mashup of Roman emperor (scale, triumphalism) and Louis XIV (scale, love of gold), with a side of Saudi ostentation. What do these influences have in common? They are the negation of liberal democracy.

Does that come as any surprise to you?

China’s massive and growing trade surplus is a danger to producers in the rest of the world. The logical response would be for Trump to engineer a unified response in order to compel a change in Chinese behavior. Instead, he has done precisely the opposite. Unwilling to risk the short-term consequences of a trade war with China and lacking any flair or inclination for diplomacy, he is sucking up to Xi and bullying the rest of the world.

As a result, Xi is a successful mercantilist, even though his policies are damaging to Chinese consumers. Trump is a failed one.

America is now viewed as an unreliable partner by the rest of the world. After all, we elected Trump–twice. Even after the man on golf cart goes, we could do something similar again. We can’t be trusted anymore.

But America elected Trump to bring back the economy of 2019, end involvement in foreign wars, and secure the border in a humane manner, none of which he has actually done. Only a handful of MAGA fanatics wanted him to threaten Canada and Greenland, attack Iran and Venezuela, use tariffs to pursue personal vendettas, and abuse NATO. The likelihood that we would repeat Trump 2.0 is very low.

First, always bully weaker but historically friendly countries. They pretend friendship in order to take advantage of you. Make sure they only receive services from you–market access, resources, and security–at the market price. If they don’t like it, who cares? They have nowhere else to go.

Second, suck up to dictators with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, you have little leverage over them except the threat of overwhelming force, which is too dangerous to use. Your only hope of influencing them is to openly admire them, so make a display of treating them as equals and colleagues and see what happens.

The irony of SCOTUS during the Trump years is that the Trumpiest justices are the conservatives he didn’t appoint. Thomas and Alito are passionate culture warriors who support the entirety of the Trump agenda and consistently vote that way. If the man on golf cart decides to become a full-fledged military dictator, you can be sure they will be cheering him on as long as they believe the ultimate objective is to annihilate wokeness.

Brett Kavanaugh, by contrast, is merely Trump-adjacent. Like Justice Jackson, but from the other side, he writes opinions that sound like political manifestos. He ignores the facts in the record and legal principles supporting judicial restraint in order to get the outcome he wants as quickly as possible. When he votes against Trump, as he occasionally does for practical reasons, he typically does so on very limited grounds that provide hope for Trump in the future. That’s what he did with the birthright citizenship case and with the mail voting rule.

Don’t expect this to change any time in the foreseeable future.

Assume for purposes of argument that Trump concedes to Father Time and the Constitution and passes the torch to J.D. How would a J.D. presidency compare with Trump 2.0?

It would be more consistent, predictable, grim, and ideological, as opposed to personal, arbitrary, ego-driven, and despotic. It would be less militaristic and focus less on imperialism. Instead of making ephemeral short-term deals with opponents and issuing bogus executive orders, J.D. would emphasize creating rules through regular processes. He would take fighting the culture war to an entirely new plane in order to get to the Godly Society.

It would look more like a DeSantis presidency than one run by Trump. On one point, however, there would be continuity–J.D. likes trolling the left as much as Trump.

Donald Trump is an old man; even he has to see that. In addition, the Supreme Court has immunized him against virtually all legal perils after he leaves office. Surely, it’s time to retire, right? He can just go home to Mar-a-Lago and dominate the political scene through his use of Lying Psycho without enduring the burdens of office. It’s a good deal for him.

Not so fast! Trump thrives on attention, and he loves being the boss of the world. Even if J.D. is a sock puppet president, he will get the perks of office and most of the attention from the media, and Trump will look like yesterday’s man. The band won’t play “Hail to the Chief” for him anymore. Giving up office will be painful.

What if the latter argument wins the day? Trump has to know he has no chance of being re-elected through legal channels. Even the Green Bay sweep wouldn’t be enough to keep him in the White House.

The answer, of course, is the invocation of a bogus emergency and a military coup. Everything will be in place to make it happen. The closer we get to November 2028, the more peril to the republic.

Trump’s UN speech apparently was calculated to offend the sensibilities of as many people–friends and adversaries alike–as possible. Why would he do that? What was the point?

To send the message to the entire world that he’s the boss, of course. You already knew that. American economic and security interests don’t even enter into the equation for him.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, lost midterms blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

Some right-wing friends have lost their way, and now I’ve got to choose.

If we aren’t strong and unified, we’re surely going to lose.

_____________

Our record has been mixed at best; I’m not going to lie.

I asked the base to stand and fight; they sit and wonder why.

We haven’t failed at everything; we deserve another try.

If we fail, then hope is gone; the dream will surely die.

______________

I’ve got the blues.

The lost power blues.

We’ve got a big agenda

But the left is not enthused.

Lots of things are left to do;

More promises to keep.

If legal means won’t do the job

We’ll try the Green Bay sweep.

Theodore Roosevelt, to his intense later regret, chose not to run for a third term in 1908. When his handpicked successor, Taft, won the election, he left the country and hunted game in Africa for over a year. Upon his return, he found that Taft was running the country in a manner not exactly to his liking. The two fell out, Roosevelt ran in 1912, and the rest is history.

By comparison, Trump is going to demand that J.D. agree to be his lap puppy in exchange for the GOP nomination in 2028. If J.D. wins, Trump is going to Mar-a-Lago, not Africa, from whence he will continue to blast out angry posts in all caps on Lying Psycho on a regular basis. It is a burden from which J.D. will never be able to escape. It will be a constant plague on his presidency.

By November 2028, everything required to run the Green Bay sweep will be in place. Trump will have control of the military, ICE, and the DOJ, and there will be plenty of election deniers in key positions in swing states. Given the quirks in his personality, there are no boundaries he won’t transgress to protect his own interests and his fragile self-image. But what about J.D.? If he’s the one on the ballot, not Trump, should we have the same concerns?

J.D. is an extremely ambitious politician and, at least for the moment, a committed reactionary. Unlike Trump, however, he is not a narcissist, and I think he retains some respect for liberal democracy. The thought of going down as the most odious villain in American political history will trouble him far more than Trump. That potential legacy may be all that stands between us and disaster in 2028.

The Saudis are crying out for American military help against the Houthis, who are threatening the Red Sea escape route for their oil. Trump can’t make up his mind, and with good reason; doing nothing will result in significantly higher oil prices and cause the Saudis to look for security alternatives, while simply bombing the Houthis hasn’t worked in the past and probably won’t work now. What should the man on golf cart do?

There are no good alternatives. The only military option with any real chance of success is a ground invasion of Yemen. Such are the consequences of launching a stupid war.

He should have thought of that six months ago.