No Demographic Study, Thank You

If my guess is correct, most of our readers are late middle-aged or a bit younger, predominantly descendants of white European men and women, reasonably affluent, owners of agencies, other insurance-related enterprises, insurance attorneys or holders of important jobs in the field. In short, a great readership: at nearly 130 years of continuous publishing, the last 33 under our aegis, the Advocate (IA) has had a pretty consistent run and a pretty consistent response from readers who are so loyal that we usually get cancellation notices only for retirements…or death.

In fact, there are even a few readers who are snow birds who actually call to get their subs sent to Florida for the cold months.

The IA enjoys a nice place in the mind set of many professionals. And that is why, among other reasons, that I will never subject you to a demographics study or some marketing survey on behalf of this mini institution of which I often feel more like a curator than an editor. When you think about it, such exercises make not one jot of difference anyway, especially since the magazine will publish its news, opinions and slightly campaign edged articles regardless of current tastes or fads. Or marketing interests.

Of course, that does not give me license to use this space randomly or to fall into a “mission drift” of self-indulgence. I am sure that no one would be particularly interested were I to use this space to discuss my views of the most recent opera at the Met, the Yankees’ line up this year, the way a child should behave, sociological issues affecting immigration, or the fashionable, recreational use of marijuana…unless any one of these topics touched upon insuring.

Why not spout off?  After all, I do own the magazine? The answer is simple. My views have nothing to do with the reason why you buy this publication. Nor does your ethnicity or income level or sexual appetite matter in the mission or the delivery of what is in these pages. I am coming to a point here: that is, I wish fervently that the very same logic would be employed by elected officials who are voted into office to run the subways, provide safety, ensure reliable energy conduits, see to good roads and fair and open governance. Oh, and modest taxation.

Today, unfortunately, most elected officials adopt assumed mandates—i.e. instead of fixing systems and improving general conditions, the new generation of legislators and self-anointed disruptors assume that they are elected as sort of a social protest, as social engineers in residence, as civil rights balancers, as players and referees at the same time, as “gotcha” pundits, or as change agents seeking any change suggested by any voting bloc, however small. They depend upon identity politics, demographics, incessant polls and differences per se. They swing into 5th gear way beyond the scope of their charges as legislators and drive up the road of headline conquest…while there remains a practical set of things to be managed, like the State and Federal budgets, sanitation, public safety and schools.

Let me hasten to add that some editors take the same route, enabling the voices that come from their cable channels and newsrooms to become effectively campaign spaces masquerading as information resources. They assume a mandate well beyond reporting or communicating news, identified as such. It has, thus, divided everyone into a demographic stat or an audience of predictable like-minded groups readied for advertisers seeking that particular group. Again, that’s why I never market-survey our readership. We just ask for your “vote”—your sub—as a sign that what we are doing is useful, relevant, and not outside our “mandate.”

We foray into social issues when they impact insurance or reflect a trend that might affect insuring. We wish that regulators would do the same toward the insurance business all the time, as a few DFS leaders have over the years—deal with the fundamentals and leave the redressing of social ills of the day to elected officials, or to religious and civic leaders.

One such current issue that will wind up affecting insurers and insureds is, again, our cover story. We have mounted a campaign in these pages against legalization of marijuana. Aiding and abetting incivility and the dangers of over licensed behavior comes directly with the new trend toward legalizing forms of marijuana—i.e. allowing its use ubiquitously in the name of recreation and lifestyle options. What is the goal of elected officials? To make the world safe for the pleasure of a few at the expense of overall safety? Our latest feature on the topic underlines the danger, in fact the caprice of allowing these new sets of uses. I am not the only one to write that it is CRAZY, socially destructive, downright danger-causing for drivers, pedestrians, professionals of all kinds, users of all kinds and ages, and on and on. The harm will be felt rapidly as claims are filed and possibly found defensible. The late Sen. Daniel Moynihan called it “dumbing down.” Arrests will drop, but so will police officers’ ability to tie in charges that used to be revealed when an illegal user was nabbed or a turnstile jumper stopped. So what is the motive for legislating approval here? A small voting bloc?  A “right” denied? A flowering industry’s tax revenues? Millennial voter appeal? Proof that demographic marketing, not common sense, rules the day?

Insurance regulators elsewhere are struggling to deal with this latest “advance” in civilization. It will prove costly to the industry and to the lives lost on the roads and in other places where the fog of lassitude is allowed to reign. “Dumbing down” is taking over and it will find its way into the pages and prices of policies, if legislators force regulators to serve crazy political aims and not the stability and vitality of those whom they regulate.

Common sense needs a serious reintroduction. SA