FLORIDA
Disney’s Lesson in Policy Conflict
What E.E. Schattschneider can teach us about the latest fireworks in Florida politics
While not particularly known for staid, understated politics, over the past few weeks Florida has seen several high-profile policy battles over redistricting, education policy, and the Walt Disney World Resort’s tax status. Of particular interest has been the Parental Rights in Education bill, also referred to as “Don’t Say Gay,” which prohibits school districts from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Walt Disney Company publicly opposed the bill after a wave of employee frustration, and Florida Republicans responded by swiftly revoking the resort’s special Reedy Creek taxing district that, among other things, allows the Walt Disney World Resort to maintain its own fire department, building codes, and other responsibilities typically associated with local governments.
While attention now has turned to the Reedy Creek district’s specific status and Disney’s power within the state, we can better understand what’s happening by turning to one of the most influential political scientists of the past 80 years, E.E. Schattschneider.
It’s a conflict expansion story
Some of E.E. Schattschneider’s most influential work came during a widespread debate within political science in the 1950s and 60s about whether American politics was dominated by elites or was essentially pluralist. Schattschneider argued that we can’t only look at the decisions that get made and the outcomes they produce to obtain our answer.
Politics, wrote Schattschneider, was about controlling the scope, visibility, and intensity of conflict. Societal interests can be organized in many different ways, with different coalitions opposing each other depending on which issues are prioritized and how they’re defined: how people are thinking about an issue.
For Schattschneider, groups that are losing a particular conflict should try to change the way the issue is talked about in order to raise its visibility and get more people paying attention. Importantly, though, raising an issue’s visibility doesn’t guarantee success; mobilizing one’s supporters can counter-mobilize opponents in response.
Disney’s involvement in the “Don’t Say Gay” debate and Florida Republicans’ response is a lesson in how not to try to expand conflict. Disney did not take a public position until after the bill already had passed the state House and Senate and was on its way to Gov. DeSantis’s desk. CEO Bob Chapek said that the company had opposed the bill behind the scenes, and tried to lobby (sorry, “engage with”) state lawmakers; if so their efforts were unsuccessful.
Disney’s public opposition came after employees expressed their own anger, but expanding the scope of conflict over the bill didn’t get the company what it wanted. Disney clearly was not prepared for the conflict’s intensity and the Florida Republicans’ counter-mobilization in response to what the latter say is the company’s inappropriate involvement in politics.
And there’s a good chance Schattschneider would agree with the Republicans.
What if this is how politics is supposed to work?
E.E. Schattschneider is perhaps the most influential political scientist in American politics not only for his writings on conflict expansion but particularly for his theorizing about and advocacy for stronger parties.
Schattschneider was the driving force behind the American Political Science Association’s 1950 report, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The basic idea is that having two internally-unified but distinct parties that present clearly divergent agendas is good for democracy. Having a “responsible” party system — what the heck, let’s just call it polarization — makes it easier for voters to use party ID as a heuristic.
Schattschneider (and the APSA committee members that wrote the report) argued that having clearly distinct parties with different agendas, and legislative party leaders empowered to use the tools at their disposal to advance those agendas, makes it easier for the public to hold elected officials accountable since we know what to expect. For Schattschneider, organizing politics this way was much preferable to letting elite interests restrict the scope of conflict and participation. He argued that unlike elite economic interests, parties have incentives to increase participation and get more people involved in politics.
In many ways American politics today is the way Schattschneider wanted it. We have much greater coordination between national, state, and local party organizations than we did in the 1940s. Republicans and Democrats present distinct platforms which then get translated into Congress’s agenda. Party leaders in the legislature, meanwhile, increasingly have been empowered to bypass committees, restrict floor amendments, and enact their party’s priorities.
One easily could argue that the “Don’t Say Gay”-Reedy Creek saga in Florida is politics exactly how E.E. Schattschneider thought it should be practiced. The majority party passed legislation that clearly distinguished it from the minority party, thereby signaling to voters what its brand is. A corporation tried to wield some influence, but that dimension of conflict got lumped into the party division with decisions made by politicians who ultimately will be accountable to voters.
Last week’s actions though, and what we continue to learn about the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s status, reveal a potential downside to “responsible” party government.
The Politics of Haste Comes to Florida
David Mayhew’s landmark study of congressional lawmaking, Divided We Govern, found no significant difference in significant outputs between unified and divided government. But in his concluding chapter he suggested other ways that party control of the legislature might matter, including a “pathological logic of enactment” under unified government that produces a “politics of haste.”
I tested this idea empirically using data on “star prints” — error corrections — made to Senate committee reports. Even something as simple as a typo can have significant policy consequences, as when a legislature appropriates millions of dollars instead of billions or when policy is tied to the employment rate instead of the unemployment rate. I found that divided party control of the two chambers is associated with fewer of these legislative errors.
It appears the Florida state legislature’s quick repeal of the Reedy Creek improvement district is a classic example of the “politics of haste.” Gov. Ron DeSantis added the measure to the legislature’s special session agenda on April 19, and with Republicans in the majority in both House and Senate DeSantis was able to sign the bill onto law three days later.
But the law may not work as Florida Republicans intended as Disney’s lawyers have found a provision prohibiting the state from repealing the improvement district if there are outstanding debts — which there are.
The politics of haste should remind us that “campaigning is different from governing” is an old saw for a reason. Parties can present distinct agendas to make voting decisions easier, but what they do when in power should matter too. Responsible party government is not always effective government; processes that can slow down lawmaking, like holding public hearings that explore a proposal’s potential consequences, can still serve party interests and promote democratic accountability. Political parties just need to be willing to hold themselves accountable to the public through transparency and deliberation.
