DeSantis Has Committed The Political Equivalent to Double-Suicide.

Background:

The current controversy concerning Florida’s governor/prospective presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and renowned film company The Walt Disney Company is rooted in DeSantis’s passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prohibits teachers from instructing students on gender identity or sexual orientation through the third grade. Disney opposes the bill and vowed in March of 2022 to assist in having it repealed. “The Happiest Place on Earth,” or Disney World, is situated in Orlando, Florida, but its specific location is classified as a “special taxing district.” As a result, the company possesses tax privileges and relative independence over jurisdiction in their district given that it’s overseen by a self-appointed board. DeSantis has decided to punish Disney for their condemnation of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by abolishing their special district privileges and attempting to appoint a new board of members loyal to himself. He has responded to the backlash by stating that he is “just making Disney live by the same rules as everybody else,” but Disney disagrees and is calling DeSantis’s actions a “targeted campaign of government retaliation” as a result of Disney “expressing a viewpoint that the governor and his allies did not like.” DeSantis’s actions align with conservative anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, but neglect a cornerstone aspect of GOP policy… Deregulation of business. The controversy not only concerns First Amendment protections but also has crucial implications for DeSantis’s developing presidential campaign, in addition to the general election race itself.

Opinion:

DeSantis’s persecution of Disney may very well be the pitfall of his 2024 presidential campaign, and it hasn’t even been officially launched. The prospective candidate has committed the political equivalent of a double suicide as this move further shrinks his potential of receiving any democratic support on the national scale, but more importantly, alienates an integral portion of staunchly pro-business Republicans.

The fact that Disney is an iconic, authentically American company that often promotes traditional family values in its productions compounds the profoundness of DeSantis’s miscalculation to restrict (or at least attempt to) Disney’s “special district” privileges. Furthermore, Disney World provides a critical source of revenue for the state of Florida in addition to over 70,000 jobs, the greatest amount by any individual corporation. If DeSantis had any hopes of winning a primary election for a party whose foundational ideologies champion the de-regulation of businesses and protecting private property rights, this controversy could be the nail in the coffin for his incipient presidential campaign. He continues to adhere to this tumultuous path, however, and has reaffirmed his actions by further speaking out against Disney, claiming that “the lawsuit is solely political” and it “holds no merit.” These are bold assertions for a man whose actions are in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. He’s gone as far as to propose the building of a competing theme park neighboring Disney World, as well as a prison. I mean c’mon, a prison, immediately adjacent to the “happiest place on earth?” Forget the presidential election, the Disney controversy may even oust DeSantis’s chances of retaining his position as governor of Florida.

In all honesty, I see nothing objectively wrong with the decision to remove Disney from its pedestal. DeSantis has defended the campaign by arguing that “the last time he checked, giving companies their own governments isn’t what the free market is about.” These claims are valid as under the law DeSantis is not obligated to maintain extended privileges for Disney, but it's the context in which DeSantis is pursuing these new limitations that makes the move so detrimental and also makes his loss in the courts inevitable.

This is where the plot thickens because, at the same time that DeSantis is pursuing non-conservative and anti-business actions against America’s most esteemed film company, he’s simultaneously in blatant violation of the first amendment on the terms by which he’s decided to revoke Disney’s special privileges. This is not to say that DeSantis’s election odds are dependent on any tangible amount of democratic support, but still, he’s further exacerbated tensions with the left by condemning Disney’s LGBTQ+ support which worsens his odds in a general election. Now, let’s paint the full picture: DeSantis, a proclaimed traditional conservative, has taken an anti-business position against one of America’s dearest companies for their crime of exercising their First Amendment right to denounce an anti-gay law. That sounds like a grade-A dumpster fire by all standards, and an infallible method of alienating both GOP and Democratic supporters.

As previously stated, DeSantis’s statement that corporations should not be entitled to their own governments regardless of status holds merit, but from a purely strategic standpoint, what. is. he. doing? In a race for the GOP primary election in which he’s already losing to former president Trump, engaging in a 0-upside “targeted campaign of government retaliation” may be the most pernicious maneuver imaginable for his prospective presidential campaign.

Many speculate that DeSantis has pursued this course of action under the impression that it would bolster support from those opposed to “woke” corporations -- companies perceived by conservatives to be “grooming” kids into the radical LBTQ+ agenda -- in addition to fortifying his policies, inspiring a sense of confidence in his supporters. He failed, however, to realize the prominence of his opponent and now finds himself engaged in a culture war in which he possesses no leverage or business in being involved.

DeSantis has dedicated himself to pursuing extremely conservative policies in hopes of appealing to Republicans upset with Trump’s lack of traditionalism. This attempt to push as far right as possible to win the GOP primary underlines a much broader issue with both the 2024 presidential election race and the American political sphere generally. In order to win a primary election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates are forced to take their agendas as far right or left as imaginable. This leads to immense stratification between the two parties in the general election and leaves virtually no candidate that appeals to the American citizens collectively, just one focused solely on the conservative interests of Republicans and another geared exclusively towards the liberal Democrats. Because each partisan candidate must back themselves into the deepest corner of their party's beliefs to win their primary, there is no intersection in policy or ideas and thus, no sense of unity in American politics. The two parties take polar opposite stances concerning every facet of the political sphere and this creates an abysmal divide in our system. This is to the detriment of the vast majority of voters, given that most members of either party largely do not hold the radical views that the candidates cater to. It seems that there exists no moderate candidate in this upcoming election, largely due to the skewed agendas each candidate must adopt in order to win their primary election and even make it to the general election.

DeSantis was simply attempting to demonstrate his dedication to traditional conservatism by condemning Disney for opposing his “Don’t Say Gay” law. This would fundamentally fall in line with the GOP agenda had Disney been a radically liberal startup, or really just any other company besides well, Disney. This context does not justify his remarkably misguided decision to engage in this controversy, but in a way, DeSantis has merely fallen victim to the trap that is the primary election. Regardless of who DeSantis was running against, the battle with Disney would be a grandiose mistake. However, DeSantis’s integral advantage over Trump up until this point has simply been his electability. In the eyes of many Republicans, Trump represents controversy and toxicity. He is an unprofessional culture warrior who carries an immense amount of political, and now legal baggage. DeSantis needs to leverage himself favorably so as to not be cast in Trump’s shadow. He must distinguish himself by pursuing a policy-based campaign and avoiding controversy at all costs, because if there’s one thing Trump has established himself as, he is the king of controversy. By pursuing such an aggressive campaign against Disney, DeSantis is acting in Trump’s shadow, imitating his culture warrior antics and thus ruining his reputation for being “more electable.” It's as if DeSantis is playing a video game against the developer himself, and for some absurdly ambitious reason, he thinks he can win. The challenger never beats the developer at his own game, and in this case, Trump is the developer.

In conclusion, the primary elections are to blame for the bottomless fissure between the GOP and Democrats, and consequently, the lack of a presidential candidate that represents the interests of the American citizens. Sure, one may point to a third party such as the “No Labels” when discussing moderate political views, yet once again the dominance of the existing two-party system bars any third party from even dreaming of getting their candidate elected to the presidency. And so we are stuck in a vicious cycle where candidates are forced into adopting their parties' most radical views if they are to succeed in winning their primary elections, just to render both candidates virtually unelectable by the time they reach the general election. As a result, we will never endure the luxury of a stable political climate, where intrinsic policy disagreements still exist but on a broader scale, both candidates generally represent the interests of everyday citizens, instead of those belonging to the most acute renditions of members from their individual parties. This dilemma has contributed to the polarization of presidential candidates and detrimental stratification of both parties, creating a political environment where aspirations of intersectionality, agreement, or even compromise, are perpetually restricted to wishful thinking and nothing more.