‘Pointless political pantomime’: Columnist drop the hammer on Ron DeSantis over Disney attacks

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ performative ongoing feud with Disney reflects the breach of an “uneasy truce” between politicians and corporations that served a purpose, Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle contends.

“Sure, if politicians threatened a firm’s bottom line, the business would fight back. But there were limits: Companies tended to conduct these battles politely, for fear of offending regulators who held a great deal of power over them, or customers who might disagree with them,” McArdle writes.

“And they did not pick fights on matters that didn’t directly affect their profits.”

The truce started crumbling around a decade ago, McCardle writes, noting Florida's dispute with Disney over culture issues follows a corporate boycott of Indiana over a religious freedom law that LGBTQ+ advocates argued was discriminatory, and Delta’s withdrawal of group discounts to the NRA and CEO’s signing open letters in protest of new laws imperiling reproductive rights, among other disagreements between business and political leaders.

IN OTHER NEWS: ‘Raw and graphic’ Trump deposition video could be devastating to his defense: legal experts

The dispute between Disney and Florida Republicans began over the company issuing a mild rebuke of the state’s so-called Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the “don’t say gay” law.

DeSantis moved to eliminate Disney’s unique status in which assumes a governing role in the Reedy Creek Improvement District around Disney World, and has threatened to increase hotel taxes, add road tolls or build a prison adjacent to its Orlando theme park.

The Florida governor indicated the move was payback.

“If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” DeSantis said around the time of Reedy Creek Improvement District dispute.

Disney alleges such moves are retaliatory and has filed a lawsuit against DeSantis.

McCardle writes: “One can imagine an equilibrium where Florida politicians said such things for the cameras, and then backstage came to a quiet understanding: You stay out of the culture war, we’ll let you run Reedy Creek how you like. Would such a bargain be a tad corrupt? Yes. Would it undermine norms of free speech that ought to be upheld? Also yes.”

“But American democracy is flexible enough to absorb a certain amount of low-grade line-crossing — at least as long as politicians exercise some restraint, which DeSantis has not. Instead, he had to keep turning the screws for the cameras, most recently suggesting the state might jack up hotel taxes near Disney, add tolls to the roads, or even build a prison there.”

Disney had no interest in a protracted dispute with the Florida governor, McCardle writes, noting a Wall Street Journal report in which corporate leaders express concerns about how to avert becoming the next Disney.

McCardle writes: “DeSantis effectively left Disney no choice other than to pursue its very strong legal case against his antics, and all his bragging about how hard he was sticking it to Disney will provide excellent evidence for the plaintiffs.”

“If DeSantis loses that case, we’re apt to end up with quite a different sort of corrupt deal: one in which everyone who matters understands that this is all just a performance, pantomime attacks that will inevitably get reversed in the courts and will achieve nothing for anyone except the politicians who indulge in it.”