Review: The movie ‘Civil War’—incitement or deterrent?

The first poster issued for the movie Civil War. (Art: A24)

April 19, 2024 by David Silverberg

Back on Dec. 13, the independent, boutique movie studio A24 released a horrific-looking trailer for a movie called Civil War.

Its premise was that civil war breaks out in the United States between a president and his forces and an insurrectionist opposition. It was impossible to tell from the trailer whether the person portrayed as the president in the movie was supposed to be Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whether the insurrectionists were fighting to Make America Great Again (MAGA) or to preserve democracy.

The movie was released last weekend, on April 12, without the fanfare and the major marketing push that prospective blockbusters command. Nonetheless it earned $25.7 million at the box office on its opening weekend, a record for A24.

It is currently playing in Southwest Florida theaters.

Back in January, after watching the trailer, this author raised the question whether this movie would encourage would-be insurrectionists to take up arms against the government of the United States.

As stated at the time: “Whether pro or anti insurrection—or even anti-American—the most dangerous thing about this movie is that it will encourage those thinking of civil war and political violence to actually take up arms and make this fiction real. People living in deep red, heavily MAGA, gun-saturated places—like Southwest Florida—where there has already been talk of armed revolution, know that the line between fantasy and reality in this matter is already very thin.”

Having seen it, this author can address the question: is this movie likely to incite political violence and armed insurrection?

Rather than the usual domain for a movie review—the artistic, aesthetic and performance aspects—this review will try to answer that question.

But to understand the answer, one needs to know the setting, the characters, and the plot.

Background

Anyone thinking of seeing this movie should know at the outset that in its quest for authenticity it is extremely violent, bloodily graphic, literally gory, incredibly loud and full of profanity. There are a lot of unceremonious executions. It is rated R.

The civil war is already under way as the movie opens. The exact details of the conflict are only sketched out. The president, a man given to hyperbole and exaggeration who wears red ties, is in his (implied) illegitimate third term and has no intention of leaving the office.

“Western forces” consisting of Californian and Texan troops are at war with the federal government as is a “Florida alliance,” which has tried to make headway toward Washington, DC. Both have been beaten back, according to the president, who characterizes them as “secessionist.”

“Some are already calling it the greatest victory in the history of mankind,” he says.

In New York City, an experienced war photographer named Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst, is photographing street protests that end in a bloody explosion, part of the rising tide of violence. Her driver and assistant is Joel, played by Brazilian-born actor, Wagner Moura.

Together they plan to travel to Washington, DC to cover the culmination of the rebellion. But as they talk of going, Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson, an old, lame New York Times reporter they know, cadges a ride. Also tagging along is Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny, an aspiring war photographer who idolizes Lee (and who, in the biggest unreality of the entire movie, insists on shooting black and white film!).

So now the stereotypical quartet is complete: a hard-bitten, disillusioned veteran photog who has seen it all; a vaguely Latino sidekick; an ingénue and apprentice; and an old, wise, disabled black character providing special insights, a cliché known as the “magical Negro,” a term invented by director Spike Lee.

The movie could have been titled Four Tropes in a Truck.

No spoiler here: the psychological arc of the story is the maturation and brutal, real-world education of Jessie.

While in real life the road from New York to Washington, DC is pretty straightforward (Interstate 95, anyone?) the situation is such that the characters have to follow a roundabout route through the backroads of Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

This odyssey leads to a series of dystopian episodes that illustrate the disruption, inhumanity and confusion of civil war. (And also allow for filming tight, intimate scenes that don’t cost too much to set up.)

The film culminates in an elaborate, destructive assault on Washington and the White House, whose compound has been surrounded by a high, heavily fortified concrete wall, presumably built at the direction of this president.

Portraying civil war

The term “civil war” has been bandied about a great deal lately, mostly by MAGAs loyal to former President Donald Trump, who has also warned of a “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to office this November.

Naples farmer and grocer Alfie Oakes takes aim in an Aug. 8, 2021 Facebook post stating, “I pray we have election integrity in 2022…. if we don’t we must prepare for the worst! Our second amendment right is specifically to revolt against a a tyrannical government! Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.”  (Photo: Facebook)

The people discussing “civil war” as a real possibility don’t appear to have a clue what real “civil war” means. They don’t appear to understand just what a tragedy, a horror, and an apocalypse a civil war constitutes. When Trump discusses a “bloodbath” and his enablers, like Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), defend it, they’re not showing any real comprehension of what happens when a society and nation is viciously ripped apart; when neighbors, family, friends turn on each other—and lose their nearest and dearest at each other’s hands.

To some small degree the movie Civil War conveys this kind of holocaust.

There is one scene where the journalists are stopped by an armed man of indeterminate side. When they say they are Americans like him, he asks: “What kind of Americans?”

“What kind of Americans?” (Image: A24)

Their lives depend on their answers, but there’s no telling what his standards are or what kind of Americans he’s seeking.

This in some small way conveys the horror and mortal uncertainty of a civil war.

To me one of the most tragic and awful depictions in the movie is a battle between uniformed soldiers and US Secret Service agents in the halls of the White House.

To know US Secret Service agents is to know some of the most patriotic, loyal, dedicated, highly-trained servants of this country, many with military backgrounds, people whose lives are on the line daily in the performance of their duties. To see them pitted—even fictionally—against fellow American soldiers really brings home the tragedy and horror of what a “civil war” truly means.

In a sense Civil War serves a constructive role in bringing all this horror this home. But the large number of appalling incidents and images also desensitizes the viewer to the brutality of what’s happening so that by the end, these occurrences are just a matter of course, exactly as Jessie learns to experience them.

This desensitization occurred during America’s real Civil War too. At the very outset northerners were appalled in 1861 by the killing of a single Union officer, Col. Elmer Ellsworth, when he was shot taking down a Confederate flag in Alexandria, Va. He was the first Union soldier to die and his death made headlines. By the end of the conflict in 1865, over 600,000 Americans were dead, their passing just statistics in the newspapers of the time.

Americans received a foretaste of real civil war on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump pitted thousands of his followers against the US Congress and the Capitol Police. American Trumpers beat and battered American police officers doing their duty protecting the American Capitol. Americans attempted to lynch an American Vice President. It is remarkable that only one rioter was shot and that plans to use lethal force against members of Congress did not succeed. It could have been a real bloodbath.

A non-fiction documentary of Jan. 6 could serve as a depiction of a second American civil war instead of the movie’s fictional portrayal.

(And on a personal note: As a journalist I had the privilege during my career of being granted entry to the White House and always approached that mansion with a sense of respect and even awe. It was wrenching to watch even a replica of hallways I had known wrecked in the movie, just as much as it was devastating to watch Capitol corridors I had walked defiled and vandalized on Jan. 6. As though to make things worse, the movie shows the Lincoln Memorial attacked, the same building before whose steps I took my wedding vows on a boat on the Potomac. Every one of these sacred, meaningful sites has now been devastated in fact or in fiction. Next, no doubt, will come the turn of the Supreme Court—and if the justices rule that the Jan. 6 rioters go free from charges of obstructing government, then they deserve what they get when their chambers are invaded and vandalized in their turn.)

The Lincoln Memorial attacked in the movie. (Image: A24)

Does it incite?

Will this movie inspire someone to take up arms and violently try to overthrow the Constitution and the government of the United States?

Probably not—at least from a standing start. However, a person already inclined to use violence might find additional motivation from this movie.

The movie is likely to inspire at least one imitative mass shooting or attack on a soft target like a peaceful gathering or a theater. If that happens, investigators should ask if the perpetrators saw the film and were incited by it.

Almost as damaging as possible incitement is the fact that movie posits lethal violence as a political solution. That is unacceptable in a civil society governed by law. In a society ripped apart by civil war violence is the last solution left but—mercifully—America is not there now, at least to the point of widespread disorder.

That should never be allowed to happen in America. It’s one more reason that the concept of civil war is so abhorrent on so many levels, even in fictional depictions.

Anti-Trump or anti-Union?

It’s clear that the President, played by Nick Offerman, is a portrayal of Donald Trump. MAGAs, however, may see the situation through the lens of President Joe Biden as the overstepping tyrant in the movie, justifying armed resistance.

However, the real political threat portrayed in the movie is the notion of secession from the United States by violent means. After all, the overall political situation in the movie is one of states revolting against a hijacked federal government—although the notion of Florida rising up against Trump or a California-Texas alliance is pretty far-fetched at the moment.

Still, secession is rearing its head again and expressing itself in anti-federal actions, particularly in Florida and Texas.

Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, stated that the movie was “not as implausible as some people would have you believe” and was “pouring gasoline on the fire” of a Texas secessionist movement that has been called “Texit.”

The resistance of the governors of Florida and Texas to federal authority has been called “soft secession” and it is likely to go further. They continue defying federal authority, including that of the Supreme Court.

Even at the grassroots level, commissioners in Collier County, Fla., have passed an ordinance reserving the right to ignore federal law, effectively nullifying national rules they don’t like.

So the movie revives the idea of a state-based secession movement, an argument that was seemingly settled in 1865.

The sign of secession in the heart of one nation, indivisible: Rioter Kevin Seefried of Delaware carries the Confederate flag into the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In February 2023 Seefried was sentenced to three years in prison for obstruction of an official proceeding and for using that flag to attack Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who heroically led rioters away from the Senate chamber. (Photo: AFP/Saul Loeb)

Takeaways

To answer the first question any movie review should answer: Should you go see the movie?

If you enjoy extreme violence, gore and chaos, yes. But if you don’t, your life won’t be any worse for skipping it. If you do see it, it’s unlikely to profoundly change your outlook or worldview.

But in a larger sense, and looking more broadly, one hopes this film might serve to dampen down the threats of armed insurrection, violence, bloodbaths and secession.

One can understand what inspired its creation and the desire to produce it. Its producers have every right to present it.

Fortunately, it is not an unmistakable incitement to civil disorder and insurrection. It doesn’t call on viewers to take up arms and go to war.

But neither is it a clear deterrent.

It shows the horrors of civil war and what that would entail at ground level. But it doesn’t convey the full, deep meaning of what civil war would do to America and the full magnitude of the disaster that civil war imposes on any society.

Ultimately, a civil war in America like that portrayed would be a historic tragedy of staggering proportions at every level—globally, nationally and individually.

If the movie inspires anything constructive it should inspire a determination never to have events like those portrayed occur. One would hope it would inspire the people of the United States to reject divisiveness, insurrection, criminality and treason and, out of diversity, forge unity—“E Pluribus Unum,” as America’s first motto stated. It should inspire allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law and the realization that a common future trumps all allegiance or obedience to any single, violence-spewing, delusional individual.

If not, the movie Civil War might better be titled Putin’s Dream.

Liberty lives in light

© 2024 by David Silverberg

DeSantis’ book warns of danger to America—from him

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis promotes his book in Davenport, Iowa on March 10 of this year. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

May 9, 2023 by David Silverberg

Any day now, Florida Gov. Ronald DeSantis (R) is going to declare his candidacy for President of the United States.

The legislative session is over. An exception has been made to the state’s resign-to-run law enabling him to run. Trips to key primary states have been made and an international tour has attempted to establish his international credentials (with very mixed success). Consultants have been hired, funds raised and an organization built. All the gears are grinding toward a presidential campaign.

Among his many preparations, a book has been published under DeSantis’ name called The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival.

It’s easy to dismiss candidate campaign books and political autobiographies. They’re written and published with clear ends in mind: to prepare the way for future runs and/or to justify past actions. An effective campaign book does both.

Yet for all their self-serving ends, all the staff-written ghost writing, all the vetting and editing and weighing of words, often by committees, they can still be revealing. They’re especially valuable for explaining political goals and ends. No matter how little the actual author did the writing, they still unveil a personality and an individual’s thinking.  

One of history’s most complete and revealing campaign books was Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Perhaps if more people had actually read it and realized what he was saying when it was first published he would have been stopped and there wouldn’t have been a Second World War.

The Courage to Be Free is not Mein Kampf. But it is a DeSantis manifesto and worth careful reading, review and analysis.

A simple style for simple readers

Stylistically, this is a very plain and easily read book. It’s very straightforward and accessible in its narrative.

DeSantis has a distinctive “voice” but it’s not present throughout the book. His introduction, “A Florida Blueprint” lays out his ideology and doctrinal principles. This is the one chapter that doesn’t “sound” like him. It’s stilted, almost as though copied verbatim from some conservative political cribsheet, or perhaps it represented his first writing effort, or his final summary. Whatever the reason, if there’s any chapter that reads as though it were written by a different author, this is it.

It also appears that DeSantis and any co-author or editors decided that this was the chapter most likely to be hastily skimmed by casual readers, voters or journalists and they wanted to get their doctrinal material up front.

It is in this introduction that DeSantis lays out his main themes: that the United States is run by illegitimate “elites,” that he is a bold and brave governor, that his governorship led to freedom and success and that Florida under his administration represents the future.

“Florida has consistently defended its people against large institutions looking to cause them harm—from public health bureaucrats looking to keep kids out of school to large corporations trying to undermine the rights of parents and to federal agencies trying to push people out of work due to COVID shots,” he writes.

Much of the rest of the book is more personal. It’s a memoir of his upbringing, life in politics and rise through the ranks. It recounts his time as a representative in Congress and his run for governor. It then goes over the issues he tackled in office and why he tackled them the way he did.

Like his prose, the person that emerges from this book is relatively straightforward and simple. DeSantis is not a deep thinker, although he’s careful to cite credible sources, especially the Federalist Papers, for his arguments. However, there isn’t any introspection, or contemplation or even nuanced consideration of larger issues. While there’s some acknowledgement of wider causes and effects, there’s little attempt to derive insight from them. Unlike, for example, a Henry Kissinger memoir, there’s no effort to peer deeply into a topic and reflect on the history behind it or draw lessons from it. Once DeSantis has made his assumptions and has his set conceptions the rest follows, largely without reflection.

DeSantis was a baseball athlete in school and one cannot help but consider that this is the kind of account that any jock might produce for a sports memoir.

Trump vs. Trump-lite

Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign book.

DeSantis’ main political rival at this point in time is former president, former mentor and fellow Floridian, Donald J. Trump. Trump is certainly a topic in DeSantis’ book but a gingerly treated one.

It’s interesting to contrast DeSantis’ memoir with Trump’s own 2016 campaign book, Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.

Reading Crippled America was a fascinating, if exhausting, experience. No matter what the topic being addressed at the top of any page, by the bottom of the page the prose had turned to an extravagant, adulatory paean to Donald Trump. Every. Single. Page.

As the world discovered during his presidency and afterwards, Donald Trump loves Donald Trump. But not just “loves.” The English language does not quite have the words that fully convey his self-regard. “Selfish,” “egomaniacal,” “narcissistic” all apply but not at the cosmic depth and intensity that burned from the pages of Crippled America. In this book Trump was revealed as a universe unto himself, a universe with a single inhabitant at whose core was not a soul but a throbbing black hole of me-ness that sucked in all energy, light and life.

Mercifully, even if the DeSantis personality that emerges from Courage is simple and often simplistic, at least it has some grip on reality.

It’s very interesting to contrast the DeSantis and Trump accounts of Trump’s endorsement of DeSantis for governor when he first ran. Then, DeSantis was an obscure congressman running against Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam, an overwhelmingly favored rival for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

As DeSantis tells it: “In late 2017, I asked the president if he would be willing to send out a tweet touting me as a good candidate for Florida governor. He seemed amenable, but at the same time, I was not holding my breath; the president has a lot on his plate, and this was not likely to rank on his list of things to do. About a week later, a Trump tweet appeared:

“Congressman Ron DeSantis is a brilliant young leader, Yale and then Harvard Law, who would make a GREAT Governor of Florida. He loves our Country and is a true FIGHTER!”

That’s it. He then goes on to recount the campaign and how he won.

As Trump told the story in a lengthy, rambling, digressive interview with Sean Hannity, DeSantis requested a meeting with him and, “with tears in his eyes” begged for an endorsement. Although Trump thought DeSantis had little chance, saying: “Ron, you’re so far behind I can’t imagine that if you got George Washington’s endorsement, combined with the late, great Abraham Lincoln, if you had their endorsements, that you would win,” Trump decided to take a chance because, unlike Putnam, DeSantis had defended Trump against impeachment charges. Trump describes the endorsement as variously having the impact of a nuclear bomb or a rocket launch.

That the endorsement made the difference in the race is undeniable, although Trump gets next to no credit in DeSantis’ book.

Despite the bad blood that has bubbled between the two men, DeSantis continues to defend Trump against charges of Russian collusion. He does this, however, in the context of attacking what he always calls the “legacy media.”

 “The Mount Everest of anonymous source-fueled political narratives was the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, which was a media-driven hoax designed to cast doubt on the results of the 2016 presidential election and strangle the Trump presidency in the crib,” he writes. “The theory—that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election—represented perhaps the most serious charge ever leveled against an American president.”

(Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign was extensively documented in the Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election by Robert Mueller. The role that Florida played is covered in the 2019 article, “Trump, Florida, Russia: Tracking the Sunshine State in the Mueller Report.”)

It is noteworthy that nowhere in the book does DeSantis mention Trump’s incitement of the January 6th insurrection and its mob violence, even as he condemns disorder. “Since mob violence constitutes a mortal threat to social order, swift and strong accountability is the only logical response,” he writes, touting his own anti-protest legislation. He condemns rioters in Portland, Oregon in the wake of George Floyd’s death but not those who attacked the United States Capitol, tried to destroy Congress and overturn the election.

Of course, in the Trump universe DeSantis has gone from “a brilliant young leader” to “Ron Desanctimonious” and “Meatball Ron.” However, if there’s any resentment on DeSantis’ part, it never made it into the book.

Instead, DeSantis’ resentment is reserved for other targets, those that will resonate with Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base and presumably win DeSantis the nomination.

The targets

Chief among DeSantis’ targets are “elites.”

“Whom, exactly, are these elites?” DeSantis asks in his introduction. He relies on a definition provided by author and academic Angelo Codevilla, defining them as an “ideological, incompetent, and self-interested ‘ruling class’ that has consolidated power over American society in the past fifty years.”

He continues: “These elites are ‘progressives’ who believe our country should be managed by an exclusive cadre of ‘experts’ who wield authority though an unaccountable and massive administrative state. They tend to view average Americans with contempt, believe in the need for wholesale social engineering of American society, and consider themselves entitled to wield power over others.”

Of course, unmentioned is the fact that these “elites,” ever more open to talent, intelligence and education rather than heredity or class or race, led the United States through a Great Depression, a world war, a Cold War, a terrorist war, and made the country the richest and mightiest in history with the widest distribution of prosperity. They shaped the world according to rational rules that spread democracy and secured a rough peace for nearly a century.

But no matter, throughout the rest of the book, DeSantis wages rhetorical war on these elites and experts whenever possible.

He does not overlook his own elite Ivy League education at Yale University, where he graduated magna cum laude, and Harvard Law. But DeSantis maintains that he was untainted by elitism.

“Experiencing unbridled leftism on campus pushed me to the right,” he writes. “I had no use for those who denigrated our country or mocked people of faith.” Although he thought that the leftist ideas he found on campus would whither in the light of reality, he writes that he was mistaken. On the contrary, “the ideology that dominates so many major institutions in American life, including our largest corporations, is a clear reflection of the campus dogma that has infected a generation of students at elite American universities.”

It is when it comes to this ideological combat that DeSantis’s book proves most valuable because it puts his actions as governor into an overall context. Like many other conservatives, DeSantis sees all of American society dominated by an elite-guided “woke” ideology. “These elites control the federal bureaucracy, lobby shops on K Street, big business, corporate media, Big Tech companies, and universities,” he writes.

DeSantis is at war with all these institutions and the book documents his battles. His attacks on the Florida university system and its professors are just one part of his ideological crusade. His war with the Disney Company is a front in his struggle against a “woke” corporate culture. His attacks on “Big Tech” are an essential element of his battle with elites.

DeSantis devotes an entire chapter to the COVID-19 pandemic and his response to it.

“Florida bucked the ‘experts’ and charted a course that sought to maintain the functioning of society and the overall health of its citizenry,” he writes of the pandemic. “Power-hungry elites tried to use the coronavirus to impose an oppressive biomedical security state on America but Florida stood as an impenetrable roadblock to such designs.

“We also recognized the intellectual bankruptcy and brazen partisanship of the public health elites, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The performance of these so-called experts—they were wrong on the need for lockdowns, the efficacy of cloth masks, school closures, the existence of natural immunity and the accuracy of epidemiological ‘models’—was so dreadful that no sane person should ever ‘trust the experts’ ever again.”

DeSantis goes into great detail describing how he and his surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, disproved the data coming out of Washington and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and reached their own conclusions about defying the guidance and administering vaccines—or not.

“I was not going to allow our state to descend into a Faucian dystopia in which people’s freedoms were curtailed and their livelihoods destroyed,” DeSantis writes. “Florida protected individual freedom, economic opportunity and access to education—and our state is much better for it.”

While DeSantis acknowledges that there was some “mortality” in Florida from COVID, the 86,850 Floridians who died from COVID or the 7.5 million who were stricken get short shrift. Nor does he have a word of praise or appreciation for the healthcare workers who struggled to care for and cure them. These people, living and dead, apparently did not merit mention.

He also doesn’t address a two-week period in December 2021 when he disappeared from public view and rumors swirled that he had a bout of COVID. (In an almost-covert act, DeSantis received a vaccination in April 2021.)

In addition to the “biomedical security state,” throughout the book DeSantis constantly attacks what he variously calls the “legacy media,” or “corporate media,” and, of course, what Trump characterized as the “fake news.”

On this issue, DeSantis does have a solid example of shoddy reporting to bolster his claims: the 2021 report by the television show “60 Minutes.” That broadcast, “A Fair Shot,” irresponsibly and inaccurately drew a connection between DeSantis and the award of a contract to provide COVID vaccines through the Publix supermarket chain. (To read in-depth coverage of the incident and Publix politics, see “Publix: Where politics bring no pleasure.”) “60 Minutes” was condemned by just about all parties for implying wrongdoing where none was proven and using smear tactics to further its preferred story.

However, despite this legitimate complaint about this particular report, DeSantis’ hatred of the media is painted with a far broader brush. He agrees with Trump’s infamous tweet that the media “is the enemy of the American people.” (This came one month into Trump’s presidency when the world refused to buy his obviously false insistence that he’d had the largest inaugural crowd in history).

For DeSantis, “The national legacy press is the praetorian guard of the nation’s failed ruling class, running interference for elites who share their vision and smearing those who dare to oppose it. All too often, the legacy press operates in bad faith, elevates their preferred narratives over facts, and indulges in knee-jerk partisanship.”

He writes: “Legacy media outlets have evolved into something akin to state-run media. They do not seek to hold the powerful accountable. Instead, they protect the nation’s left-leaning ruling class, including the permanent bureaucracy in Washington and Democratic elected officials.”

DeSantis also fully explains his feud with the Disney Corporation in a chapter titled “The magic kingdom of woke corporatism.”

DeSantis sees private companies as purely political entities, writing, “corporate America has become a major protagonist in battles over American politics and culture. The battle lines almost invariably find large, publicly-traded corporations lining up behind leftist causes. It is unthinkable that these large companies would side with conservative Americans on issues such as the Second Amendment, the right to life, election integrity and religious liberty.”

Guns and mass shootings get only passing mention, as in DeSantis’ Second Amendment reference above. The 2018 Parkland shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resulted in new gun reforms in Florida, which DeSantis stated he would have vetoed had he been governor at the time. Otherwise, he writes, “Rather than a firearms issue, I viewed the Parkland massacre as a catastrophic failure of leadership that cried out for accountability.” He blames the Broward County sheriff for the shooting and points to spending $750 million on school safety measures during his tenure.

This is particularly interesting because on June 14, 2017, after a baseball practice, DeSantis and another congressman were approached by a man who asked if baseball players on a playing field in Alexandria, Va., were Republicans or Democrats. DeSantis’ companion said they were Republicans and then the two went to a car and left. It was only later in the morning when he was in the congressional gym that he learned the man had shot at the players, wounding Rep. Steven Scalise (R-1-La.) before being killed himself.

In other hands, this incident would be an excellent opportunity to reflect on the problem of gun violence in America, or the need for more widespread mental health care, or even the fragility of life. DeSantis only relates that he was relieved he left practice early.

Other than a similarly passing reference to “the right to life,” DeSantis doesn’t examine the abortion issue in Florida in the book. As governor he signed into law a ban on abortions after six weeks, although he didn’t address—or discourage—calls to ban abortions completely.

Another subject that gets short shrift is foreign policy. As a congressman, DeSantis supported moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He also opposes Chinese Communist Party activities in the United States. Other than that, the world outside Florida doesn’t interest him much, at least as far as his book is concerned.

Analysis: Florida and the future

Political autobiographies usually set out to do two things: get the author elected and provide a blueprint for what he or she would do if elected.

In terms of getting DeSantis elected, the book certainly spells out what he believes and how he perceives the world. Theoretically, it should confirm the biases and orientations of the Trumpist, MAGA base, whose votes DeSantis is seeking.

However, whatever his thoughts and feelings, as long as Trump is in the race DeSantis can only run as “Trump-lite” and the master himself will provide the pure, unadulterated hatred, prejudice and rage that MAGA addicts crave.

This brings up another factor evident in the book—and one that is actually commendable.

Nowhere in the book does DeSantis advocate violence or extralegal measures. Trump, by contrast, encouraged violence among his followers and even took physically violent action himself. On Jan. 6, thwarted by his electoral failure, he incited a full-scale riot and insurrection, encouraged the attempted lynching of his vice president and grabbed the throat of a Secret Service agent who wouldn’t drive him to the Capitol. He has never apologized or expressed regret or remorse (or been held to account) for any of this and he’s touted incarcerated rioters as political prisoners. He’s never condemned violence in principle.

DeSantis presents himself as a law and order governor and so there are no insinuations or incitements to political violence in his book (or during his appearances). This is not to be overlooked or minimized or, for that matter, taken for granted. Political violence is a hallmark of true fascism and Trump encouraged it as part of national political life.

However, it would be especially commendable if, as part of his condemnation of mob violence, DeSantis would also take a firm, principled stand condemning the insurrection of Jan. 6 and those who participated in it. In the absence of that, he does what he accuses the left of doing; applying the law and condemnation selectively, depending on the cause and the participants in the disorder.

That said, in its first goal of getting him the nomination, the DeSantis book might win over a few wavering Trumpers but it’s unlikely to convert anyone outside the MAGA orbit to DeSantism. Its narrative is not so compelling or its arguments so powerful that it will sweep voters into his corner.

Looking to its larger purpose of providing a blueprint for governing, the book will likely prove repugnant to thinking Americans who don’t want Trump or a Trump-like president.

The key reason for this is that for all their differences, Trump and DeSantis share a most important characteristic: both are absolutists.

Trump classifies people by their personal loyalty to him. For DeSantis, the dividing line is whether they agree with his agenda, the one spelled out in this book. Ultimately, though, both men want absolute obedience—and that is not the American way.

DeSantis’ demands are perhaps somewhat more complex and more subtly expressed than Trump’s but their intents are the same. DeSantis is at war with “woke” as he defines it and whether it’s individual citizens or schools or universities or businesses or corporations or scientists or public servants or the media, he doesn’t want them thinking the way he opposes. He doesn’t want to convince them to his thinking, he wants to crush their heresy through legislation, legal action or all the tools of the state.  

As Floridians are finding out, no one is safe from DeSantist demands, whether those demands are made by the governor himself or by a servile legislature competing to implement this absolutist agenda.

As so many would-be tyrants have proven through history, absolute agendas of this sort may be called “freedom” by their advocates but in practice they’re anything but free. DeSantis may claim that he’s showing courage by pursuing absolute power despite criticism and opposition. Maybe, though, his opponents and detractors see something different and more oppressive to which he himself is blind.

So in many ways, it’s a good thing that Ron DeSantis has laid out his blueprint for America’s “revival” in The Courage to Be Free. By reading it and being aware of his agenda, freedom-loving Americans will gain their own wisdom and have their own courage to ensure that America stays free from his absolutism—which threatens them so absolutely.

Liberty lives in light

© 2023 by David Silverberg

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Fascism in Florida? ‘Blood and Power’ provides perspective

The visage of Benito Mussolini glowers down from Fascist Party headquarters in Rome in 1934 against a backdrop urging a ‘si’ or yes vote in a referendum. (Photo: Scientific American)

April 17, 2023 by David Silverberg

“Fascism” is a term thrown around a lot these days, especially in Florida.

However, are the kinds of repressive, extreme and anti-democratic measures being proposed and imposed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and the Florida legislature actual Fascism, as their critics charge? Is the rise of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) right in America actually fascism as the ideology and movement have historically been defined?

To answer those questions, one has to reach back into history to Fascism’s origins and evolution.

In America, Nazi Germany has always defined the image of fascism in the popular imagination. However, it was in Italy immediately after World War I that the name “fascism” was used for the first time, Fascism first developed as a political movement, and fascists seized government power.

Fortunately, there’s a recently published book on exactly that subject: Blood and Power: The Rise and Fall of Italian Fascism.

(A note on style: This article follows both the Associated Press and the Chicago Manual of Style, which hold that nouns and adjectives designating political and economic systems of thought are lowercased, like fascism and socialism, as opposed to the names of political parties like the National Fascist Party, or formally titled movements like Nazi or Fascist.)

Published in September 2022 by Bloomsbury Publishing in London, Blood and Power is by English historian John Foot, a professor of modern Italian history at the University of Bristol. Foot has written extensively on topics of Italian history and knows this subject thoroughly.

Violence from the start

“Italy invented fascism,” Foot writes in his prologue, and from its beginning at two little-noticed meetings in Milan in March 1919, fascism was violent.

“Fascists embraced violence, both in their language and on the streets. At first, they were overshadowed by a socialist uprising where revolution seemed inevitable during the ‘two red years’—biennio rosso—of 1919-20. But soon, groups of fascists, known as squads, dressed in black, were on the march in the countryside and cities of Italy, destroying a powerful union movement, crushing democracy and spreading fear through the country; 1921-22 were the ‘two black years’—the biennio nero.”

In 1922 the fascist squadristi marched on Rome. Their leader, former socialist Benito Mussolini, was named prime minister when the king of Italy and the government caved in to their demands.

“Having taken power through murderous violence, Italian fascism held onto it through further bloodshed and occupation of the state. In power, fascism eliminated all vestiges of free speech,” Foot writes. Further, fascism “eliminated its opponents with gusto or reduced them to a state of fear. It also rewrote its own history, painting the fascist movement as a glorious defender of the fatherland as a revolutionary and modernizing force, but also as a return to order. Fascism was built on a mound of dead bodies, cracked heads, traumatized victims of violence, burnt books and smashed up cooperatives and union headquarters. Most of those who ended up governing Italy had committed crimes for which they were rarely investigated, let alone tried.”

Foot acknowledges that “There has been considerable historical debate about the meaning of Italian fascism.” He asks: was it forward-looking or backward-looking? (Or put in a modern American context, did it aim to “make Italy great again?”)

Foot’s answer: “Italian fascism looked forwards and backwards.” It built both radically modernist structures and neo-classical throwbacks, both daring art and unimaginative tributes to Il Duce, Mussolini’s title. “It understood the power of the media and advertising, but it also glanced back longingly to a rural Italy that was fast disappearing. It was at times radical, but also radically reactionary, and often simply pragmatic. It claimed to be anti-system and anti-political, but most of its leading proponents were corrupt, and enriched themselves. These contradictions were also its strengths.”

In this history Foot emphasizes the ground-level violence that fascists employed against their opponents and competitors—and against democracy and its mechanisms. American histories of the era often overlook the street brawls, maulings and fights that accompanied fascism’s rise. They’re summarized in a word or paragraph, whether they took place in Italy or Germany.

Foot, however, is at pains to show that violence was integral to fascism. “Without violence, both before and during the regime, fascism would never have come close to power. It was fundamental, visceral, epochal and life-changing: both for those who experienced it, and those who practiced it.”

The same reliance on street-level violence in the onset of German fascism has been referenced in numerous accounts of the rise of Nazism.

What Foot documents very well was the relentless, violent hammering at all the institutions and aspects of democracy by Italian fascists. Whether in town or provincial councils or the national parliament, fascists attacked the mechanics of parliamentary process and procedure, as well as those who were trying to maintain it. Time after time they stopped government at all levels from functioning, whether by disrupting parliamentary proceedings or beating or killing those who administered it.

This reliance on violence was partially driven by the fact that Fascists were in the electoral minority. Socialism was very popular in Italy after the First World War and socialists were often democratically voted into office. Fascists had to smash democracy to impose their will on the population.

In Bologna in 1920 fascists succeeded in forcing the dissolution of an elected city government through terrorism in the streets and an assassination in the city council chamber. To this day it’s unclear whether they deliberately killed one of their own councilors. Regardless, they used Bologna as a model and went on to destroy local democratic governments throughout Italy, culminating in their march on Rome two years later and takeover of the nation.

There was strong, often equally violent resistance to this effort. But the decisive change came when the instruments of the state, the police, the Carabinieri and Royal Guards either stood by or joined the fascists. Fascists gradually grew confident that they wouldn’t be prosecuted or jailed for their crimes or else they could intimidate or dominate the forces of law enforcement and the judicial system.

With both the cudgels and daggers of the squadristi and the authorities of the state arrayed against it, democracy was gradually ground into dust. It simply couldn’t function in such an atmosphere and those who believed in it failed or were unable to take the kind of action necessary to preserve it.

John Foot (Photo: University of Bristol)

Recognizing fascism

It would be much easier to oppose fascism if there was a single, definitive expression of its meaning and beliefs, the way there is with the Communist Manifesto.

Mussolini had been a journalist and an editor but perhaps because he didn’t serve a jail term as fascist leader he never collected and organized his beliefs into a single document. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was so peculiar to Germany that it couldn’t really serve as a template elsewhere, although it succeeded in conveying his racism and anti-Semitism to the world and layed out a blueprint for German conquest.

As a result, today in America it’s difficult to recognize Fascism as a formal movement. Its adherents don’t march waving little black books the way Chinese communists waved red-colored copies of Mao Zedong’s sayings. Even the neo-Nazis and racists who demonstrated and rioted in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 did not formally call themselves Fascists.

Nonetheless, Americans will clearly recognize themes, beliefs and practices that hearken back to the classic fascism of Mussolini and Hitler.

Foot is well aware of these patterns and points them out in his epilogue.

“More recently, Donald Trump has often been compared to Mussolini,” he writes. “His speaking style…his policies (nationalism, racism, autarchy, a corporate state, a distaste for democracy itself)—have led to associations with Il Duce.”

He continues: “Democracy does not last forever. Indeed, it is often extremely fragile. Italian fascism showed how democracy, and its institutions, can quickly crumble in the face of violence, disaffection and rage. Some of this was seen in the USA after 2016, and not just in the armed attack on the Capitol in January 2021. When the ‘forces of law and order’ are also on board, things can quickly disintegrate. Collusion between parts of the state and the fascists was a key factor in Mussolini’s victory.”

Lastly, he warns: “Fascism’s historic attempt to ‘deliberately…transform its lies into reality’ certainly chimes with much of what is happening today on the far right, and more widely on social media. Fascism will not return in the same form yet may still make a comeback in some way. It could be argued that this might have already happened in different times and various places.”

Fascism and Florida

Today Florida is the laboratory for an American anti-democratic experiment. A former president in residence, a radical right governor and an extremist legislature are following unmistakable paths that were plowed almost exactly a century ago in tumultuous Italy.

One of these is the attack on the autonomy of local governments. (“In push to the right, Florida cities and counties become focus for DeSantis and lawmakers,” Tallahassee Democrat, Feb. 17, 2023.)

Another is the effort to muzzle the press. (“DeSantis, GOP lawmakers pursue bill to gut press freedom,” Miami Herald, Feb. 25, 2023.)

A third is the effort to constrict and restrict the vote. (“DeSantis signs additional voting restrictions into law before cheering crowd,” Florida Phoenix, April 25, 2022.)

A fourth is the assault on freedom of thought in schools and universities. (“FL Governor DeSantis’ proposals on higher education pose a grave threat to academic freedom and free speech at public colleges and universities,” PEN America, Feb. 2, 2023.)

A fifth is the attempt by the governor to create his own military force answerable only to himself. (“DeSantis seeks $98 million to fund Florida’s own military,” Click Orlando, March 9, 2023.)

In the legislature, state Sen. Blaize Ingoglia (R-11-Citrus, Hernando and Sumter counties) is attempting to outlaw the Democratic Party in Florida through “The Ultimate Cancel Act” (SB 1248). This is clearly an effort to create a one-party state of the kind that Mussolini and Hitler established in Italy and Germany.

Ingoglia may want Florida to be a one-party state but in fact his own party is facing its own two distinct anti-democratic movements built around their leaders.

Trumpism, which centers on former President Donald Trump, is not only threatening for its fascistic tendencies, but more closely resembles classic fascism in its propensity for violence. After all, Trump encouraged violence throughout his 2016 presidential campaign, during his term in office and then incited the insurrection and assault on the US Capitol and Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump directly attempted to overthrow the duly elected national government and negate a free and fair election. It was a leaf not only out of the fascist playbook, it mirrored what Mussolini and the fascists did in Italy.

What might be called DeSantism (or Florida+Fascism=”Flascism”?) has not expressed itself in violence—yet. Nonetheless, DeSantis’ war on what he calls “woke” clearly follows classic fascist strategies. As mentioned above, these include: reducing local autonomy, muzzling or intimidating the press, restricting the vote, and assaulting freedom of speech and thought. Add to this mix his anti-competitive gerrymandering of election districts, his dominance of a wide variety of boards and panels and his bullying of private enterprises like the Disney Corp., for their ideological dissent.

It’s worth remembering that both Italian and German fascist movements represented themselves as revolutionary resistance efforts against what they saw as looming threats. They focused on specific causes for their countries’ plights and they targeted scapegoats on which all blame could be heaped. In the early 1920s in Italy the threat was Bolshevism, the plight was Italy’s “mutilated peace” and the scapegoats were Socialists. In Germany, the threat was Communism, the plight was the Versailles Treaty, and the scapegoats were Jews.

For Donald Trump the threat is “radical, leftist Democrats,” the plight is a supposedly stolen election and among his many scapegoats is billionaire George Soros. For DeSantis the threat is a “woke mob,” the plight is liberal “woke” ideology and the scapegoat is the media—and also, George Soros.

The specifics may be different but the patterns are the same. Only a century separates them.

But it would be remiss not to note the differences.

American carnage

When Fascism arose in Europe it was at the end of a world war. Both Italians and Germans felt defeated, dissatisfied and humiliated. Russia had fallen to Bolshevism and a militant communist movement appeared ready to dominate the world through revolutionary violence. Both countries had millions of demobilized men with military training, accustomed to military regimentation and were looking for causes transcending themselves. Fascism provided an outlet for their energies and experience and a focus for their rage.

America in 2016 presented a very different picture. It was wealthy and confident. It was the dominant power in the world. Its culture and the rules it had established with its allies ever since World War II governed global trade and diplomacy. Its chief opponents, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, were gone and their successors sought Western acceptance. Communism was dead as an active force. American forces had captured and killed Osama bin Laden and largely destroyed the terrorist jihadist threat from abroad. America was stable politically, economically and socially. Its population was largely united on the fundamentals of its Constitution, laws and believed in its mission in the world. And it was the world’s oldest, continuously functioning democracy, the value of which was unchallenged.

Running against this reality, Donald Trump had no chance of winning the presidency. To pose as America’s savior, he had to create American carnage first. He had to create a situation of dissatisfaction and disorder and so he conjured up phantom dangers, conspiracies, plights, grievances and scapegoats. He exaggerated the threat from his political opponents, painting them as treasonous, dangerous and monstrous. He worked to destroy a moderate, middle political ground, dividing Americans into absolute loyalists or absolute enemies. He and his allies, who included Russian President Vladimir Putin and Fox News, spun an unreality that was the polar opposite of the true state of affairs and then tried to impose it on an otherwise moderate populace.

In 2016 the majority of Americans rejected Trump and Trumpism, delivering 48 percent of their votes to Hillary Clinton compared to Trump’s 46 percent, a difference of 2.9 million ballots. However, with razor-thin margins in key Electoral College states and Russian help, Trump gained the presidency and America has been crippled ever since.

For DeSantis, the chosen path to power was to conjure a “woke” threat that made simple open-mindedness, free thought, an obscure academic theory and social tolerance into an apocalyptic phantasmal “woke” peril of grooming, racism and coercion.

Now this battle is continuing in Florida as Trump and DeSantis compete for the Republican Party presidential nomination, the White House and ultimately, control of the nation. The state of Florida has the misfortune to be their initial battleground. Trump is using his national platform to spread Trumpism throughout Florida and beyond; DeSantis is promoting DeSantism and imposing its precepts on the state through his power as governor, while openly hoping to propagate it nationwide.

Analysis: The verdict

So is Florida a fascist state?

Perhaps at this point it might be most accurate to label it as “fascistic” rather than overtly Fascist.

Florida cannot simply be labeled Fascist because it does not have a registered Fascist Party by that name. It is not seeing the kind of pervasive political violence that accompanied the rise of European fascism. While Trump is still advocating violence (warning of “potential death & destruction” if he was arrested), DeSantis is not, nor is political violence evident in everyday life. There are still multiple legal political parties, although this is threatened in the legislature. Laws still govern, although their authority is becoming shaky as is the application of national laws and the Constitution. (e.g., “DeSantis: Florida won’t cooperate with Trump extradition.”).

That said, there are strong currents propelling the state in a fascistic direction, as detailed above.

But the triumph of fascism in Florida is no more assured than it was at its outset in Italy or Germany.

The strongest defense against fascism is simply the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which when actively applied prevents the kind of oppression imposed by fascism.

One potential countervailing force is an active and vigorous effort to preserve democracy at the grassroots. This means protecting parliamentary democracy at the city and county level and even in local school boards. Key to this is defending the voting franchise for all eligible citizens and encouraging active participation. It is especially important that the public preserve its right to petition government for a redress of grievances and to freely express opinions to lawmakers, a right already threatened in Florida at the state and local levels. (“Just 30 seconds? Despite complex bills, Floridians are limited on public testimony in Legislature,” Florida Phoenix, March 14, 2023.)

Simply ensuring that elections are free, fair and their results counted accurately and without impediment or interference by impartial, non-partisan, professional election supervisors, is another defense. This is threatened by DeSantis’ special “election police” who have the potential to negate election results he doesn’t like and by MAGA attempts to dominate election of supervisors at the local level.

Another defense is ensuring that candidates commit in advance of their elections to accepting the tabulated results and a willingness to concede if they lose. At every debate and in every press conference, candidates should be pressed to state that they will accept the official results. Trump’s fantasies of a stolen election and his refusal to accept defeat has been incredibly damaging to the United States and it spawned imitators like Arizona’s Kari Lake. Candidates need to be clear and unambiguous that they will accept election results without qualifications or caveats, otherwise they should be condemned and disqualified.

But asking firm questions and holding candidates to the results requires a free and independent press. That is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The danger of an independent and inquiring press to fascism was fully recognized by Mussolini and Hitler and they did all they could to suppress it. Russian President Vladimir Putin also recognizes the threat that truth and real information pose—as does Trump and DeSantis and extremist Florida legislators as they hammer away at press freedoms.

But perhaps the single most important defense of democracy against fascist encroachment lies in a neutral, impartial police and the equal and vigorous application of law to all citizens regardless of status or stature.

As Foot shows in Blood and Power, once the state authorities entrusted with the tools of coercion and force stood by or joined the fascists, the game was over. This was also true in Germany. When the forces of the state stood firm against Hitler and his Nazis in 1923 when they attempted a putsch, the Nazis were stopped in their tracks and law prevailed. When the Nazis took state power in 1933 and directed Germany’s civil authorities to enforce Nazi doctrine with criminal penalties, Germany became a completely tyrannical state.

This is why exceptions cannot be made in charging a political figure like Trump for any criminal acts he may have committed, whether in office or not. He cannot be granted immunity just because he wants it and those who argue that he deserves it are aiding and abetting fascism, whether they know it or not. There is a large contingent in Florida making exactly that case—but would these people have argued that Mussolini shouldn’t have been held accountable for his crimes? Or Hitler? The case is the same.

But apolitical law enforcement is also essential at the local level, perhaps even more so. When Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida tells potential Floridians: “So we only want to share one thing as you move in hundreds a day. Welcome to Florida. But don’t register to vote and vote the stupid way you did up north, or you’ll get what they got,” that is a fascistic threat. When Sheriff Kevin Rambosk of Collier County endorses a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary” ordinance that seeks to nullify federal law in his jurisdiction, that erodes democracy at the grassroots.

There is no doubt that fascism had its attractions a century ago and still has them today. But America, like no other country, committed to democracy at its founding and defended it repeatedly over the past two centuries.

As Foot notes in Blood and Power, “Democracy does not last forever. Indeed, it is often extremely fragile. Italian fascism showed how democracy, and its institutions, can quickly crumble in the face of violence, disaffection and rage.”

But one might also respond that democracy and its institutions can stand firm, strong and resilient when its defenders are aware, united and determined.

And in Florida, even if its government is trending fascistic today, that does not mean it has to be Fascist tomorrow.

Liberty lives in light

© 2023 by David Silverberg

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Review: Florida’s new water quality website; the good, the bad and the really ugly

11-7-19 Florida website

Nov. 7, 2019 by David Silverberg

On Monday, Nov. 5, amidst much hooplah, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) unveiled a new state website, https://www.protectingfloridatogether.gov/, designed to inform Floridians of the state of their water quality.

The website has taken criticism for having outdated information but this may simply be a function of its newness.

But how well does it work as a website? The Paradise Progressive did a tour and can report the following:

  1. All non-scientific information functions as a DeSantis propaganda machine.

Here are the top four headlines and excerpts from their lead sentences:

WATER QUALITY IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR FLORIDA

That’s why, less than 48 hours after being sworn in, Governor Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order outlining his bold vision…

STATEWIDE EFFORTS

Governor DeSantis directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)…

BLUE-GREEN ALGAE TASK FORCE

Governor DeSantis took a major step forward…

RED TIDE TASK FORCE

Under Governor Ron DeSantis’ leadership the Red Tide Task Force…

A subsequent “Timeline” section is similar in tone and focus.

October 25th, 2019

GOVERNOR DESANTIS BREAKS GROUND ON EMBANKMENTS AND CANALS TO COMPLETE THE C-43 RESERVOIR

 

October 23rd, 2019

GOVERNOR DESANTIS ANNOUNCES REMOVAL OF TAMIAMI TRAIL ROADBED

 

October 22nd, 2019

GOVERNOR DESANTIS AND FLORIDA CABINET TAKE ACTION TO EXPEDITE CONSTRUCTION OF EAA RESERVOIR PROJECT

 

C’mon, guys, this is heavy-handed even by Stalinist standards.

If this hagiography is the result of some underling’s over-enthusiastic effort to impress his boss, I would expect even DeSantis to be embarrassed. If it’s a result of just throwing old press releases onto the site, it displays laziness. If this is what DeSantis himself wanted, then he’s clumsily trying to build a cult of personality.

More seriously, what it does is call into question the factual information in the rest of the site. If the introductory articles seem overly propagandistic, a user might reasonably expect the same from the rest. It’s a big turn-off.

We then get to the important stuff: Water Quality Status

  1. Not yet ready for prime time

Water quality status reports are provided for three regions: The Caloosahatchee River, Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie River. A pop-up announcement tells you that it will be expanded statewide next year.

Click on one of the regions and you have the option of seeing a map with health and algae alerts or a water quality overview. Using an unusual two-step process (control + scroll), a user can zoom in and out of the map, which is useful and shows sampling points and results. Clicking on sampling locations brings up data about that particular location.

Because the website currently shows only the three regions, other than the Caloosahatchee River outlet, there is no data for other Southwest Florida beaches or anywhere else on the Gulf coast. As the pop-up states, data for the rest of the state will be coming in the future.

The website’s navigation is somewhat awkward, particularly the zooming in and out on the maps. Exploring the site is a clunky, step-by-step process that each user needs to conduct individually. Anyone accustomed to intuitive Apple-like navigation is going to be disappointed.

The site reports on the status and activities of the Blue-Green Algae Task Force, the Red Tide Task Force and a variety of other Florida environmental projects and programs. They’re useful, although at least on my computer their maps were slow-loading.

One of the most important elements of the website is also one of its least prominent—what individuals can do to help reduce pollution and mitigate water quality problems. There are excellent tips but this function of the site is relatively buried and a user has to hunt for it. Rather than paeans to the governor, this might have been more useful to feature up front.

The bottom line

The website is useful and certainly is light years ahead of anything that previous governor Rick Scott ever did on environmental issues. It is definitely a step in the right direction and it will go some way toward enlightening Floridians about water issues and how they’re being tackled.

This could be a scientific, informative and authoritative site.

However, DeSantis and his people clearly decided to make it a propaganda vehicle. Instead of a dignified and discreet picture of DeSantis and his seal at the top, just to remind you that he’s there, they decided to hit the user over the head with a DeSantis sledgehammer.

The site in its current state is not really ready for prime time and it’s surprising that it was rolled out now. Much is lacking; as it notes, statewide data is unavailable and navigation needs to be improved. The site should be redesigned with the user in mind rather than the governor.

The great thing, though, about websites is that they’re flexible and can always be changed and upgraded.

So far DeSantis has shown a real commitment to environmental protection. We will see in the days ahead whether he has an equally real commitment to objective environmental reporting.

I’d suggest revisiting it in six months to see if there’s any improvement.

Liberty lives in light

© 2019 David Silverberg

.