Disney versus the Reds

Image: Tom Simpson, Flickr (license)

Certain aspects of Disney’s life were controversial at the time and even more so now. He was a diehard Republican and frequent fundraiser for conservative issues. Most of his political beliefs involved the need to protect America from the influx of socialism. After World War II ended, a perception existed that the United States and Russia were headed to war at some point. The only question was when.

From a historical perspective, all the countries Germany had conquered were susceptible to new influences. Men like Disney worried that Russia would steer these nations toward communism. The moment Hitler’s reign ended and Emperor Hirohito surrendered on behalf of Japan, people on both sides of the Atlantic quickly soured on the alliance that saved the planet during World War II. Disney in particular remained wary of what would become the Soviet Union for the rest of his life.

Image:Tom Simpson, Flickr (license)

One of the most unfortunate legacies of Walt Disney was his support of McCarthyism during the 1950s. He testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and you can find a full transcript of the details here. The gist is that Disney’s anti-socialist reputation was so established that some other people within the industry orchestrated strikes and smear campaigns against Walt Disney Studios. This tactic only steeled Disney’s resolve. Here’s the testimony that clearly defines why he feared the growing socialist influence in Hollywood:

“Well, they distorted everything, they lied; there was no way you could ever counteract anything that they did; they formed picket lines in front of the theaters, and, well, they called my plant a sweat-shop, and that is not true, and anybody in Hollywood would prove it otherwise. They claimed things that were not true at all and there was no way you could fight it back. It was not a labor problem at all because—I mean, I have never had labor trouble, and I think that would be backed up by anybody in Hollywood.”

Uncle Walt also noted that his reputation took a hit across the globe. That’s because regions where socialism enjoyed more popularity took note of the charges against Disney. He was the millionaire businessman taking advantage of the sweat of brow of the working class, the proletariat so important to the underlying theory of Marxism. To communists across the planet, Disney was an extremely public enemy. That intense dislike was mutual, a rarity for a man otherwise chronicled for his kindness.

The politics of The Walt Disney Company after Walt Disney

Image: Tom Simpson, Flickr (license)

This is where the situation grows trickier, more nuanced. The company founder was unquestionably a political partisan. An argument could be made that this philosophy has either evolved or skipped a generation. Did you know that one of Disney’s grand-nieces, Abigail Disney, is an accredited filmmaker in her own right? You can see a list of the projects she’s had a hand in creating on her Wikipedia page. What you’ll immediately note is that the philanthropist skews heavily to the left with her political views, something chronicled in this Los Angeles Times story.

Abigail Disney reflects something fascinating about the politics of Disney. They’re difficult to pin down accurately. On social issues, the company is above reproach. Their leadership in inclusive hiring practices is the gold standard in the corporate realm. They are thought leaders who back up their theories in practice, hiring people from all walks of life, independent of nationality, race, or sexuality. More than once, Disney has supported gay rights as opponents have threatened boycotts. The corporation held its ground on the subject so steadfastly that the boycotters eventually acknowledged failure. On social issues, The Walt Disney Company is left of MSNBC.

Image: Castles, Capes & Clones: Flickr (license)

In spite of the above, their financial donations during election years are decidedly one-sided. As this article notes, The Walt Disney Company directed 90 percent of their political buys to the Republican Party in Florida. Does this reflect a conservative point of view? The answer is actually no. Instead, it’s simply a practical matter of good business.

The state of Florida has always enjoyed a unique working relationship with Disney. When the man himself purchased the land during the 1960s, he negotiated unique autonomy from the government. Despite Disney’s control of its own lands, it’s still susceptible to other changes in Florida. For example, much of the money Disney spent on lobbying Florida politicians went toward a specific goal. The company wanted to prevent the introduction of legalized gambling into the local economy. That would have changed the nature of the greater Orlando area from family fun area to a more adult destination, ruining years of meticulous Disney strategizing. In other words, their lobbying during the 2012 election cycle was more about a single outcome than a point of view.

Image: Tom Simpson Flickr (license)

In this manner, the legacy of Walt Disney lives on. He too was a difficult man to pin down in few words. He loved his employees almost obsessively, yet was stubbornly opposed to those who were socialist. When forced to choose between finances and people, he avoided the issue as only he could, unveiling solutions that addressed both problems equally.

Disney deftly prevented the ascension of gambling from Native American-exclusivity to readily available casinos anywhere. By manipulating circumstances to protect Walt Disney World’s interests, the company’s leaders have followed Disney’s blueprint for success. He believed in the laws of the land, but he also believed in adjusting the ones that didn’t make sense. Disney largely did what he wanted with his land in first Anaheim, California, and later with his new swampland in Florida. That’s what forced the United States government into an awkward situation.