What if Disney was POTUS?
I’ve been wondering lately, why are things the way they are? Why must things be the way they are? What competing ideas for the ways things could or should be were there in days past?
Growing up rather poor, but in Southern California, the Disney story always resonated with me. No, not the evil corporate empire that we see today, but actual Walt Disney, the imaginative genius - the one that wanted to use the revenue from the theme parks to build out his EPCOT ideas.
EPCOT stood for “Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow.” It was conceived by Walt Disney in the 1960s as an experimental planned city where people would live, work, and test out new innovations and urban planning ideas.
Disney envisioned EPCOT as a futuristic utopian city, featuring innovative transportation systems, cutting-edge technology, and sustainable city planning. He wanted to create a working city of the future that would be a showcase to the world.
Some of the forward-thinking concepts Disney had for EPCOT included enclosed pedestrian areas free of cars, underground roads for delivery trucks, a high-speed transportation system to connect parts of the city, climate-controlled streets, modular homes, and a central core where people could live and work.
Disney’s motivation was to create an optimistic and ever-improving community using creativity, technology, and collaboration to improve people’s lives. He was very interested in urban design and wanted to experiment with innovative solutions to traffic, pollution, and other city problems.
So what?
As I think about the emerging housing crisis here in the US, I wondered what things would be like here if Disney had built out his dream … then replicated it across the country. Think about it. What if most American towns and cities had been built using Walt Disney’s original EPCOT model? There could potentially have been some major differences in urban development and living compared to today.
More efficient transportation - With concepts like pedestrian areas, monorails, PeopleMovers, and other innovations, transportation may have been less reliant on cars and freeways in and between cities. This could have reduced pollution, traffic congestion, and sprawl.
More sustainable communities - With a focus on planned communities using the latest technology, there may have been more adoption of sustainable energy, climate-controlled surroundings, green infrastructure, and conservation of resources like water.
More community focus - The neighborhood and town center concepts may have brought people together more and reduced isolation and disconnection in some urban areas. More mixed-use areas and community events/services.
Greater adoption of new technologies - With EPCOT envisioned as a “living blueprint,” new innovations in things like energy, transit, architecture, and urban agriculture may have been tested and integrated faster.
Tourism and economic differences - Having more EPCOT-like communities may have boosted local tourism, but changed development patterns. Housing and services would be more centralized.
More urban density and less suburban sprawl - The EPCOT model emphasized dense, walkable urban areas versus suburban sprawl. Compact communities may have been more prevalent.
Less economic inequality - Some posit Walt Disney wanted EPCOT to have neighborhoods with mixed income residents. If applied broadly, this could have reduced segregation and inequality.
Of course, this is speculative. Practical challenges may have limited EPCOT's broad influence. But at visionary level, it represented an optimistic view on improving community living via planning and technology.
Would such a model be more supportive of disabled people?
Then I wondered about such communities in light of disability. There are some aspects of Walt Disney’s original EPCOT concept that could have made a broadly implemented model potentially more supportive of disabled people.
Accessibility by design - Walt Disney was very focused on accessibility, ease of navigation, and creating experiences people of all ages and abilities could enjoy. Applying “universal design” principles broadly could have removed barriers.
Pedestrian areas and transportation - Creating walkable community centers, pedestrian zones separated from vehicles, and innovative transportation like the PeopleMover could have made navigating cities easier for those with mobility challenges.
Centralized services - Having centralized healthcare, community support, recreational facilities and other services could have made them more conveniently accessible.
Innovative housing - Disney envisioned innovative modular homes that could be customized to residents’ needs. Features accommodating disabilities could have been integrated into housing design.
Technology integration - EPCOT’s mission of “always moving forward” could have led to early integration of assistive technologies into infrastructure and services.
Prioritizing accessibility - As a core project goal, making accessibility a key priority could have prevented gaps that happen when it is an afterthought.
At the same time, putting this model into practice across all communities could have been challenging and may not have fully eliminated barriers to access. But the spirit of Disney’s vision could have promoted inclusivity and consideration of disabled residents’ experiences in city planning.
What if Disney was President of the US?
This was / is an intriguing hypothetical scenario for my autistic brain’s wanderings. If Walt Disney had not died in 1966 and instead ran for and won the US presidency, the 1970s could have looked quite different under a Disney administration.
President Disney may have pushed major investments in updating infrastructure like highways, public transit systems, airports, and utilities using latest innovations. This could have modernized and connected cities.
Disney may have accelerated research and development into maglev trains, solar power, robotics, computers, and space travel with NASA being a priority. The tech landscape may have advanced more rapidly.
Disney’s interest in urban planning may have led to new federal programs promoting creative experimental cities and suburban planned communities. Concepts from EPCOT may have been encouraged.
There may have been an emphasis on leisure time, recreation, nature conservation, and improving livability through technology and inclusive community building.
As a businessman, Disney may have cut corporate taxes and regulations significantly. He may have also initiated public-private partnerships and initiatives to stimulate tech and infrastructure investment.
Given Disney's global reach, he may have emphasized building strong ties with international allies through cultural exchange programs. Though the Cold War would have still dominated foreign policy.
Of course, passing such an ambitious agenda would have been very challenging. Disney would have faced skepticism, budget constraints, and resistance from Congress and competing corporate interests. But an optimistic Disney-led administration could have inspired progress in some of these areas during the 1970s.
The campaign commercials that never were
Imagine Disney running for president. I wondered what a campaign commercial for the Disney campaign might look like.
—fade in—
[Uplifting patriotic music plays. Images of Americans from all walks of life flash across the screen.]
Announcer: America is ready for a brighter future. But to get there, we need visionary leadership and innovative thinking.
[Footage rolls of Walt Disney meeting with architects and engineers, sketching ideas, and shaking hands with workers building EPCOT.]
Announcer: Walt Disney has always been an optimist who brings people together. His spirit of creativity and boundless imagination have delighted millions around the world.
Walt Disney: I believe in the American dream and the tremendous potential of this country. If we work hard and dream big, we can build a better tomorrow.
[Upbeat music continues and images of busy, cheerful families enjoying time together are shown.]
Announcer: Walt Disney has plans to invest in our future and bring communities together. He’ll update America’s infrastructure, accelerate research and technology, and build model cities that are accessible for all.
Walt Disney: I want an America where people are empowered to innovate. Where we conserve our natural resources through ingenuity. And where we welcome our global neighbors in the spirit of collaboration. If you elect me as your president, I’ll lead this country into the future while staying true to the timeless values we hold dear. Together, we can build a more inclusive society our children will be proud to inherit.
Announcer: On November 10th, vote for progress. Vote for community. Vote for Walt Disney for President!
[Fade to campaign logo and patriotic music continues.]
—fade to black—
Counter claims, of course.
Of course Disney would face challenges in his pursuit of the highest office in the land. His challenger would also run campaign commercials. Given the utopianism of Disney, and how that’s often countered, I wondered what a campaign commercial from his [fictional] opponent might look like, remembering that, in the late 60’s, we were in the midst of all that Cold War nonsense.
—fade in—
[Ominous music plays behind footage of Soviet military parades and Khrushchev pounding his shoe at the UN.]
Announcer: America faces enemies abroad and unrest at home. We need a leader who will stand up to communism and anarchist agitators trying to destroy our values.
[Images shift to Walt Disney shaking hands with Khrushchev and Mao Zedong.]
Announcer: Walt Disney is dangerously naive. He befriends our enemies and gives a platform to radicals who want revolution. His fantasy policies would leave America vulnerable.
[Footage of riots, protests, and civil disorder.]
Challenger: I'm Geoff Kaiser. I won’t coddle communists or cave to campus anarchy. America needs law and order restored.
Announcer: Geoff Kaiser is a war hero who understands the threats we face from Moscow, Beijing, Havana, and homegrown extremists. He’ll crack down on un-American dissent and defend liberty against the red menace.
Geoff Kaiser: Make no mistake, Disney’s ideas are a Trojan Horse for socialism. He'll swell the welfare state, leave our borders unsecured, and embolden those who want to destroy our democratic values. True patriots must unite behind proven leadership.
[Images of troops raising the flag at Iwo Jima while ominous music swells.]
Announcer: Vote for freedom’s defender, Geoff Kaiser. He will keep America strong and free in the face of growing danger from radicals and foreign adversaries who hate everything we stand for.
Geoff Kaiser: A vote for me is a vote for security. Together we will prevail.
[Fade to campaign logo with sound of military jets flying overhead.]
—fade to black—
What’s the point of all of this dreaming?
The constant election cycle in America has become an exhausting spectacle. No sooner does one season end than the next “most important election of our lifetime” begins. The political ads blanketing the airwaves have become a sea of caricatures and bombast.
These polished commercials treat voters like simple-minded consumers. Complex issues get boiled down to buzzwords and fear-mongering. Candidates rely on shallow talking points instead of substantive policy discussions. Their carefully-coached personas seem fake and scripted within an inch of their lives.
Meanwhile, the mega-donors and corporate interests behind the curtain call the shots. Their fingerprints are all over the partisan messaging and attempts at manipulation. Campaigns choose “focus-tested” issues to harp on incessantly whilst ignoring topics that don”t fit their narrative.
Election after election, we’re left wondering: where have all the authentic, inspiring leaders gone? The parade of candidates presented to us are carbon copies of one another - slick brands crafted by consultants to appeal to the “center” and offend no one.
The bold dreamers and voices of conscience seem blocked out of the national spotlight altogether. Those willing to speak hard truths and imagine a truly different path do not make it onto the debate stage. The corporate media gatekeepers have decided they are too “radical,” “unelectable,” or … worse, “too bland.”
Instead, we’re left watching choreographed political theatre starring poll-tested cutouts. They speak in sound bites and platitudes but shy away from anything resembling visionary leadership. The donor class pulls the strings whilst the people’s concerns go unheard.
America once had prophetic voices who challenged us to live up to our founding ideals of equality and justice for all. From abolitionists like Frederick Douglass to civil rights leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Chairman Fred Hampton, we have been pushed by those marginalized to expand our vision of “a more perfect union.”
But too often, when those speaking hard truths about the struggles of oppressed peoples emerged, they were rejected by the establishment as “too radical” for their time. The mainstream only sanitized their messages later to convenience the popular narrative.
Leaders like King, X, and Hampton made America uncomfortable by exposing our failures to protect the dignity and rights of all citizens. Their bold dreams disrupted the status quo and the privilege of the powerful. But their uncompromising voices were essential to inspiring progress. For their troubles, the powerful had them killed.
Back to today, the system has become too captured by moneyed interests and careerists. Those who would shake up the status quo, the so-called minor party candidates, face a barricade of establishment resistance. But we cannot keep accepting this hollow charade masquerading as democracy.
The dreamers are out there waiting for their moment.
Yes, we dreamers are out here waiting for our moment. But the doors to influence seem barricaded against those not driven by profit and the pursuit of endless growth. How can we build a just, sustainable future if the most compassionate voices are locked out?
Capitalism’s relentless drive for expansion continues unabated, despite the warning signs all around us. Income inequality yawns wider each day, exposing the system’s indifference to human dignity and flourishing. Our planet cries out as rapacious consumption pushes ecosystems to the brink (e.g., your EV is full of stuff that comes from places that use child slave labour.).
Yet the machine marches on, chasing the phantom of infinite growth on a finite planet. It has no overrides, no ability to stop and ask if this path serves our children’s welfare. Its so-called “success” is measured only in terms of quarter-over-quarter profit growth, not human lives or ecological health.
When the house of cards came crashing down in 2008, many hoped it would be a reckoning for Wall Street. Perhaps now they would see the perils of unchecked greed and financial engineering. But a leopard does not change its spots so easily.
Rather than soul-searching, the financial Masters of the Universe simply gave their schemes a fresh coat of paint. Out with “credit default swaps,” the villain of 2008, in with new terms like “synthetic risk transfers.” Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
These financiers are masters at disguising old products with new euphemisms to evade scrutiny. Subprime mortgages become “nonprime.” Predatory payday loans convert into “flexible-term lending.” Punishing levels of debt morph into “innovative equity extraction.”
Regulators, those not serving corporate masters, are caught in an endless chase trying to keep up with the latest camouflage. No sooner do they ban one product than a subtly tweaked clone emerges from the shadows. To an insider’s ears, they sound comfortingly similar despite the rebranding.
The lucrative casino stays open, memories of the crash receding into the rearview mirror. Accountability is left in the dust. Media coverage moves on while greedy schemes continue churning, the names changing but the economic cruelty the same. Until we wise up, the next crisis is already being engineered somewhere in lower Manhattan.
At a crossroads?
America stands at a crossroads. Do we continue down capitalism’s road, accepting its collateral damage as inevitable? Or do we open ourselves to new ways of organizing society, ones grounded in solidarity rather than individualism? Can we harness economy to uplift humanity instead of exploiting it?
The dreamers are assembling outside the halls of power, imagining radical forms of shared prosperity and sustainability. Workers are organizing, people are protesting, communities are building resilience. What old systems will fall to make way for the new ones we are dreaming into being? An awakening is afoot. Our moment of revelation may be closer than we know.