Aaron Blake of the Washington Post points out that some Republicans don’t like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ intervention into everyone’s business to control them. Wyoming is a great example of a state that has refused to join DeFascist’s war against WOKE.
Blake wrote:
A potential flash point in the 2024 GOP presidential race: Conservatives are criticizing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other Republicans for going too farin using the heavy hand of government to combat so-called “woke” entities.
And in Wyoming, the tension between those two approaches has come to a head.
The nation’s least-populous state could be considered its most Republican. In both 2016 and 2020, it handed Donald Trump his largest margin of victory of any of the 50 states, going for Trump by more than 43 points. Republicans hold more than 90 percent of the seats in both of its state legislative chambers.
But recently, the state House has effectively shelved a number of bills resembling proposals that have sailed to passage elsewhere:
- A school-choice bill that would create a scholarship fund for students to attend private instead of public schools.
- A bill modeled on Florida’s education bill, dubbed “don’t say gay” by critics, that would ban the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.
- A bill that would ban state officials from contracting with businesses and investment funds that boycott fossil fuels or emphasize political or social-justice goals.
- A bill called “Chloe’s Law” that would forbid doctors from providing hormone blockers and gender-affirming surgery to children.
All four have passed in the state Senate. But along the way, they lost GOP votes — a significant number of them, in the first three bills — and now the state House is holding them up.
A big reason? The state House speaker says he believes in “local control” and worries about the broader effects of state government dictating such issues.
Speaker Albert Sommers (R) has used a maneuver on the school-choice and education proposals known as keeping a bill in his “drawer.” In the former case, he noted that a similar measure already failed in the state House’s education committee. And on the latter, Florida-like bill, he argued for a limited role for state government.
“Fundamentally, I believe in local control,” Sommers told the Cowboy State Daily. “I’ve always fought, regardless of what really the issue is, against taking authority away from local school boards, town councils, county commissions. And in my view that’s what this bill does.”
He also argued that the bill was unconstitutional, because legislation in Wyoming must be focused on one topic. This bill would both restrict instruction on certain subjects and implement changes in how much control parents have over school boards. Sommers suggested such proposals “do not come from Wyoming but instead from another state, or they are templates from a national organization.” And he echoed some conservatives in arguing that it was a solution in search of a problem. “This type of teaching is not happening in Wyoming schools,” he said.ADVERTISEMENT
On “Chloe’s Law,” Sommers angered some conservatives by sending the bill to the appropriations committee rather than the labor and health committee. While the bill was being considered, some Republican legislators warned the bill would undercut counseling and mental health care for transgender youth and could create problems with the state’s federally regulated health insurance plans. The appropriations committee voted against the bill 5-2, tagging it with a “do not pass” designation.
Sommers also sent the fossil-fuels bill to the appropriations committee, and GOP lawmakers expressed worry that the bill would reduce investment in the state and force out large corporations and financial institutions.
These tensions come as some conservatives have warmed to the idea of using the government to crack down on so-called “woke” policies and practices in private businesses and in public education. That turn is perhaps best exemplified by DeSantis, who moved to prevent cruise lines from requiring covid vaccinations, prohibit social media companies from banning politicians and strip Disney of its special tax status after it criticized the so-called “don’t say gay” bill. He also has repeatedly involved the government in school curriculum decisions.
Such moves have earned significant criticism not just from some free-market and libertarian-oriented groups, but also from DeSantis’s potential rivals for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2024.
“The idea of going after [Disney’s] taxing authority — that was beyond the scope of what I as a conservative, a limited-government Republican, would be prepared to do,” former vice president Mike Pence said last week.
“For others out there that think that the government should be penalizing your business because they disagree with you politically, that isn’t very conservative,” New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu added in February. He has said that “if we’re trying to beat the Democrats at being big-government authoritarians, remember what’s going to happen.”
Last year, former Maryland governor Larry Hogan called DeSantis’s moves on Disney “crazy” and said, “DeSantis is always talking about he was not demanding that businesses do things, but he was telling the cruise lines what they had to do.”
Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, too, criticized DeSantis for his proposed changes to Disney’s special tax status (which have since been significantly watered down). In 2021, Hutchinson also took a relatively lonely stand in his state, against the legislature banning gender-affirming care for children.
“While in some instances the state must act to protect life, the state should not presume to jump into the middle of every medical, human and ethical issue,” he said at the time. “This would be — and is — a vast government overreach.”
Hutchinson’s veto was easily overridden by the state legislature. That, and DeSantis’s rise in the GOP, suggest which way the wind is blowing.
But as Wyoming shows — and the 2024 primary could demonstrate — that doesn’t mean the debate within the GOP about the scope of government is settled
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks, Greg! We knew all that, although it’s the first time I heard about his reference to “thigh” restaurants. Love John Oliver!
More free publicity for DeSantis. tRump playbook redux.
Not sure if I agree it was “the moment” that DeSantis lost the Rethuglican nomination but it’s still an Interesting take by the Young Turks.
DeSantis is more interested in wielding power than anything else. He is banking on the support and money of the radical right wing Christians, and most of his culture war promotes issues that matter to them. Business is the second group DeSantis placates. He has supported lower taxes for businesses, and he is passing laws in favor of deregulation and advantages for business. DeSantis has trounced all over local control. No local jurisdictions can pass any law that does not agree with state law. He is also very pro-privatization and routinely hands out state contracts to his associates. He has diminished the power of local school boards and redirected most education decisions to the state. Of course, the way things are going in Florida, DeSantis is the state.
Ironically, DeSantis is not really pro-business. Any business that disagrees with him, as Disney did, will be subject to retribution. Even business media have noticed. DeS wants to control everything, including the private sector, what you learn and what you think. He is the living definition of authoritarian.
His pursuit of power takes priority over his support for business. He supports businesses that kowtow to him and awards contracts to his sycophants. DeSantis demands control.
Whereas every decision and action by the ExPresident was about him and only him; every decision and action by gov. desantis is about his disdain for (and fear of) people are Black and LGBTQ and teachers who respect diversity and inclusion.
The former would spout anything regardless of party or platform if it got him accolades and a chanting rally.
The latter is dangerous who is message-specific and hate-specific and has a calculated plan to enact it – and erase people and their rights in American laws and policies.
The interaction with the reporter is interesting because it exposes something not mentioned in the piece. DeSantis is reacting exactly the way people would want to act if they were in the same situation. The extension of this behavior into the legislative branch can be seen in committee antics of Greene, Boebert, and many others. It underscores my belief that “charismatic” in politics is closer to what a group’s adoration of the fact that a demagogue says anything outrageous out loud, not because of how they do it.
DeSantis operates like Mafia boss that demands power and loyalty. Anyone that steps out of line get a political hit ordered on them. It can take the form of removing someone from elected office, hurting a business or getting the courts or legislature to tailor a law or judgment that supports DeSantis’ goal. He targets and removes the obstacle.
I don’t disagree with you. But personally, I think old analogies apply somewhat, but do not fit for the contemporary situation, which is unprecedented. I try to make the point that American fascism is quite distinct from classical fascism or Naziism. The latter inform, but they do not explain. I don’t think obvious analogies apply anymore. We need a new language and types of conceptualization before we come to terms with what’s happening. Liberals using institutions as signs of legitimacy while those institutions become illegitimate but retain appearances is a problem with which Americans have no experience. Nor do they seem to be able to grasp that we are on the edge of an abyss and are being pushed closer to it.
Greg,
In what ways does European fascism differ from DeSantis-Trump fascism? In what ways are they similar?
I’ll answer below for more space.
All well said. The former and current have the different motives, but the same M.O. Too bad only a few republicans have a problem with him.
The ExPres howled anger at the moon and people in authority and the crowds went crazy wild. The governor speaks like an authority and politician about what he plans to do about what they’re angry about.
Often stated but when pollsters and reporters were figuring out why the ExPresident was so popular and captured millions in the 2016 debates (he was his usual loud mouth, finger pointing, blaming, crude self) – –
the poll respondents from all backgrounds (wealth, blue collar, bikers, bankers, and billionaires) responded in agreement with statistical significance:
“I do not have a voice in anything”
“No one listens to, hears, or speaks for my concerns” (my wording).
Bottom line – from people ticked off and impatient in grocery lines or red lights to people who are ignored at work to people who can’t get an answer from “authorities” to people who pay millions in taxes and hate regulations…. they’re p***ed off” and no one listens or cares.
The ExPres got that and shouted it from the podium and they loved THAT about him.
He didn’t care about issues or the people.
The governor has targeted issues, hate in his heart, and cares about some people.
He cares only about himself.
Too many conservatives are buying into DeSantis’ “strong man” image.
To me, DeSantis conveys weakness. He can dish out insults but he can’t take any criticism. He shuts down dissent and calls it “freedom.” He means Florida is a state where DeSantis is “free from criticism.”
DeSantis acts like a spoiled child. When announcing his censure of Disney, he announced, “There’s a new sheriff in town.” Most bullies are really insecure, and I think DeSantis fits the profile.
Although there are many, many parallels to Weimar and now. I am one who brings them up a lot, but it is a mistake to conflate this era with that one too much. The most obvious differences are of culture, time and place. As each grew from frustrated, organic responses to unique times and events, the similarities come at the later, tactical stages of organization and power politics. Weimar’s experiences inform the few true Nazi/fascists who create or amplify messaging, campaigns and policy. But in the beginning and through the initial creation of constituencies, there many differences that led to unique movements. Let’s consider some.
One grew out of a lost war and was unintentionally nourished by a retributive treaty, economic collapse, and a search for an easy explanation to make sense of it. The other festered since before the founding of the republic, went through historical convulsions like slavery, Jim Crow, wars, and Depression. But it really started growing out of the legal success of Black legal initiatives in the 1950s. The reactionary movement that grew out of it was not fascist per se, but instead a new American variant that appealed only to a small core of mostly whites who felt deeply aggrieved and, like Germans in the early 1920s and other trends throughout history. But taken individually, many of the positions mirrored or closely resembled many parts of Nazi doctrine, but this connection was seen mostly in hindsight, not as much at the time. And it wouldn’t become apparent and publicly popular with some until 1989.
Without making this a dissertation, this argument will assume that reactions against Black full engagement in American society were a series of domestically unique events that peaked from the late 1940s through the early-to-mid 1970s. Taken individually, not one could really be credibly traced to the unique Weimar experiences of 1919-1933. Each grew within its own microenvironment, so to speak. There was an interestingly trivial event where the two trends converged, one that started Joe McCarthy’s public congressional career, the defense of German troops accused of Malmedy atrocities. But the formal connection of both began slowly in the early 1970s on the LSU campus in the student of David Duke. Without him the connection between the two might still have happened given the societal ruptures in American society to come, but Duke singlehandedly elevated the Nazi form of fascism from the small territory of kookdom to a national movement in less than two decades, when he became a credible candidate for U.S. senator and state governor. It started taking hold of the national republican party when Newt Gingrich observed the success that outrageous, racially-loud (not -tinged), bombastic statements had. They actually softened and simultaneously linked Duke’s message and approach to the House congressional campaign arm that took power in January 1995. Many saw this as Duke’s view as waning, but it was really a time of retrenchment. Remember that the current House Majority Leader, in the early 2000s, touted in a private conversation that he has never denied that he was “David Duke without the baggage.” Therefore, the birth of Naziism and American fascism come from two different root stocks.
American fascism took years to be identified as such by the vast majority of Americans, whether they were adherents, antagonists, or somewhere in between. It still has to be many. Rather than a faulty peace treaty, Americans can credibly trace theirs back to the backlash from Brown vs. Board of Education. The history that led to it was uniquely American, as was the reaction. But the most important thing to understand is that fascists themselves very rarely consider themselves to be fascist. Those who consider themselves MAGA (ultra or adjacent) have a predictable behavior and world view that is today stage-managed by elite who have unprecedented means of communication. They have also learned from the past that fascism is something to be done, but never spoken aloud. Consider that there have only been two governments in history (Argentina and Chile maybe excepted for a time) that have openly declared themselves to be fascist: Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Since then, the more they act as fascists, they continue constantly deny that they are fascists.
What lessons have they learned? Open declarations of intent are to be hidden and denied as they march forward trying to do what they claim they oppose. Every now and then they leak — the occasional arrogance of Steve Bannon: the administrative state, providing a platform for the most extreme, arrogantly making his prison sentence into Landsberg Prison 2.0, still making veiled and open threats of retribution through his mouthpiece, the Idiot — and reveal true intent. All you have to do is listen to Graham, Greene, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley, Lee, Comer, Jordan, and all the other malignant characters out there. American fascism will not have elections cancelled, they will continue and not be as crass about the anticipated results as Nazis were. Unlike Weimar, republicans are not promising to destroy and replace government openly like Nazis did, they will keep the superstructure everyone claims to love, just make its workings and membership very restricted. There will be no concentration or death camps, but there has long been — and it is now being touted by Greene as a national “divorce” — to identify groups of “others,” create and focus on irrational issues to further isolate them and distract citizens from governing. The goal is enclaves, Las Vegas-like places for ethnicities, political views, whatever category appeals at the time. There will be no Nuremberg Laws, but the judiciary at all levels is intended to reinforce ideology rather than determine constitutionality. We see in the Supreme Court now. It will only get worse if not checked in a dramatic way, one that critics will deem “unconstitutional.” And finally, the constitutional idea of rights will be replaced by two things: selective/lack of enforcement and contract law. Rather than have constitutional rights, everything — employment, housing, education, access to public services — will be negotiated. If some groups make contracts to access some things — think a Black family that can afford and wants to live in an all-white neighborhood that gives up certain rights, perhaps even agree to second-class citizenship, in exchange of a contract that lays it all out — it will override rights and create a sort of exclusivity of access to rights.
American fascism fermented in the American South for centuries until it bloomed fully in 2016. The discontent LBJ warned of when signing the Civil/Voting Rights Acts has merged with extremists who value identity as a way to prosperity over equal opportunity. What happened in Weimar is a different era, but I am convinced the Bannons/Millers/etc. who set the messaging of American fascism use it as a guide to determine tactics today. But they tap into an American society virus to create a new fascism that is designed to endure for more than 12 years.