As recently discussed here, there, and everywhere, almost before the dry cleaner’s bag was off his regal robes, restored CEO Bob Iger murmured diplomatically that, when it comes to overt political activism, maybe the company should knock it off. 

“Do I like the company being embroiled in controversy?” Iger said in an employee town hall. “Of course not. It can be distracting, and it can have a negative impact on the company. And to the extent that I can work to kind of quiet things down, I’m going to do that.”

In short, maybe, no more inserting the House of the Mouse into hot-button legislative proceedings, such as Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law (derided by pearl-clutchers as “Don’t Say Gay”).

Iger’s olive branch, accompanied by praise in general for Disney’s symbiotic relationship with Florida, prompted state Rep. Randy Fine, author of the kill-Reedy Creek legislation, to signal a restoration of normal relations:

“It’s easier to shift policy when you don’t have to defend the old policy,” told the Financial Times. “[Former CEO Bob] Chapek screwed up, but Bob Iger doesn’t have to own that screw-up.”

If for no other reason, Fine’s make-nice gesture is notable because of the Space Coast lawmaker’s reputation for sharp elbows. Fine loves a good brawl. Never mind the lunchtime Gibraltar-like rejection from Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office: Florida’s CEO “does not make U-turns.” 

“The governor was right to champion removing the extraordinary benefit given to one company through the Reedy Creek Improvement District,” the statement said. “We will have an even playing field for businesses in Florida, and the state certainly owes no special favors to one company. Disney’s debts will not fall on the taxpayers of Florida. A plan is in the works and will be released soon.”

The old two-things-can-be-true maxim applies here. What Fine and DeSantis have described are bargaining positions, patches on the same quilt. There’s plenty of room between keeping Reedy Creek precisely as it has existed (much to Florida’s benefit) and ending it altogether.

A “plan is in the works” is code for “we’re tweaking the legislation that maintains RCID while keeping an eye on developments from Burbank,” with Fine and DeSantis playing good cop/bad cop.

Translation: Tallahassee is willing to seek compromise (Fine), but lawmakers are a long way from all-is-forgiven (DeSantis).

Florida’s Legislature does not convene for another three months. That’s a dozen weeks of committee meetings, bill-writing, horse-trading, meat-packing, and lobbying.

In the end, a passable bill will be less like “There will be a border wall, and Mickey will build it,” and more like, “Trust, but verify.”

These have been sobering times for Disney, and you have to believe there will be friction between the accountants and the creative folks at the company Christmas parties. Moviegoers who once packed houses for Disney’s animated fare have made it plain they will not pay to be poked in the eye.

Entertainment industry journalists continue to call movies such as Lightyear and Strange World (both gay-influenced and both spectacular flops) “family friendly.” Some habits are hard to break. But with the weaving of overt LGBTQ messaging into its films, former fans are telling Pixar and Disney, “Not my family.”

These, overwhelmingly, are folks for whom the headline provisions of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law make absolute sense. No classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade? Check. No instruction on the same for older students unless it’s age-appropriate? Double check.

So it is with a certain amount of well-informed wariness that the representatives of Florida’s residents will press forward. Will it be enough for Disney executives to keep their noses out of state lawmaking? One would hope. Because Iger has pledged faith in the company’s progressive storytelling:

“One of the core values of our storytelling is inclusion and acceptance and tolerance,” Iger said. “And we can’t lose that.”

This may annoy traditionalists, but, in this case, Iger is talking about business decisions, not political meddling. If the company wants to keep bruising its bottom line with movies nobody goes to see and movie-inspired merchandise nobody wants to buy, that’s between Disney’s board and its — *sigh* — shareholders.

Would that the disapproval of the Republican supermajority in Florida’s Legislature performed similar magic on Disney’s creative teams, which surely would benefit the company’s battered bottom line.