The Democratic Campaign and Disability Rights
by Mary Johnson
editor@raggededgemagazine.com
This article is reproduced here with the permission of Mary Johnson,
Editor of The
Ragged Edge Online I would encourage you to explore this web site.
C. R.
Jan.
19, 2004 -- The
Iowa caucuses signal the real start of the Presidential campaign. MA.
Sen. John Kerry has just won in Iowa. But there's still New Hampshire,
and the other upcoming primaries. A lot can change before Democrats
decide on their candidate to unseat George W. Bush in November. Whoever
emerges as the front-runner, this much is already clear: Democratic
candidates are paying more attention to disability issues than ever
before.
That
says less about the candidates, however, than about the state of the
"organized disabled." Well before the 2004 election season began,
disability rights groups and politically savvy activists began working
to get disability issues onto candidates' radar screens.
The
American Association of People with Disabilities asked the 9 Democratic
hopefuls four
questions back in the fall. Six candidates answered rather promptly;
another two answered late (only Al Sharpton appears to have made no
response). The National Organization on Disability as well offers
links to the candidates and their positions.
|
The American Association of People with Disabilities asked the
candidates their views on
- Having
disabled people involved in their campaign and administration
- Appointing
judges who will support disability rights and supporting an
ADA "Restoration Act"
-
Medicaid and the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports
Act (MiCASSA)
- Funding
IDEA and improving graduation rates of students with disabilities
Their responses are online at the AAPD
website
|
At
the other end of the disability activism spectrum, the cure interests
have also sought candidates' views -- the Coalition for the Advancement
of Medical Research, of which the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
is a partner, asked candidates' views on stem-cell research and therapeutic
cloning -- and published the responses on their website
(Reeve is vice chairman of the N.O.D. Board of Directors). Longtime
disability rights operatives have made themselves available to various
campaigns, including former VT Gov. Howard Dean's and Kerry's, resulting
in remarkably detailed and on-target disability rights platforms.
How
much any of this will make any real difference as voters head to the
polls next November is less clear. So far, candidates' responses are
predictable and soothing. Only when controversy arises will it be
clear whether the candidates will put their money is where their mouths
are (or their disability outreach staff's mouths, more accurately).
And
whether there will be any controversy will depend how much candidates
think "disability rights issues" will resonate with the larger public.
Will a candidate ever bring up the Americans with Disabilities Act's
weakening -- or any component of their disability rights platforms
-- in stump speeches anywhere other than to gatherings of crips?
On
Jan., 16, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a rousing speech to disability activists
at the Disability Policy Town Hall Meeting in Bedford, NH (Read
speech.). It all sounded great. But don't hold your breath waiting
to hear Clark commenting that "unnecessary institutionalization is
discrimination" on CNN anytime soon.
Disability
rights is a long way from being a hot-button issue in the 2004 campaign.
Until it is, it will be hard to truly gauge what any politician feels
about any given disability issue. Even then, one would have to sift
the rhetoric -- but at least there'd be some rhetoric to sift.
Mass
media continue to look at candidates' views on abortion, the death
penalty, the economy and taxes, education, the environment, health
care and the war in Iraq. With the exception perhaps of the generic
"healthcare reform" (which is way too broad to mean anything to anyone),
there isn't a single disability rights issue among them.
Each
of the disability platforms posted by the candidates looks good. (Follow
links at NOD
to the platforms.) There's no controversy -- and not much difference
-- in any of them. What are the candidates' views on enforcing the
Americans with Disabilities Act? Why, all the Democratic candidates
are for strong enforcement. What are the candidates' views on supporting
home-and community based services? Strong support, naturally. They
all want to see the Medicaid Community Services and Supports Act passed
-- those who have congressional records all tell us they have been
strong supporters of the bill in Congress, notwithstanding the fact
that the bill has been in Congress for 13 years with no sign
yet of passage.
They
all denounce the current President for appointing to the federal bench
of the likes of
Jeffrey Sutton, who took anti-ADA cases before the Supreme Court
and who has now been named to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
All, if given the Oval Office, would appoint judges supportive of
disability rights.
All
would work to see Congress fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Those who have been in Congress tell us they have been
for full IDEA funding all along. All of them tell the Coalition for
the Advancement of Medical Research that they support stem cell research
and therapeutic cloning.
No
surprises anywhere. The only differences that show up are in the quality
of the information they're getting from whichever disability consultants
they're listening to. Sll the material is good; but some is more detailed
than others. John Kerry to date has the most thoroughly thought-out
disability positions.
|
In
October, former Rep. Tony Coelho gave
a speech at New York Law School in which he challenged the
candidates to
- appoint
federal judges who will respect the Americans with Disabilities
Act;
- everse
the damage to the ADA by recent Supreme Court caselaw; boost
employment for people with disabilities through changes in federal
contracting and small business policies;
- increase
federal employment of people with disabilities by 100,000 as
required under the Executive Order promulgated by President
Clinton; and,
- change
federal policies to remove work disincentives.
Dean responds
Edwards responds
Gephardt
responds
|
Groups
have not yet started to endorse candidates yet, though. Longtime disability
Washington insiders Bob Williams and Fred Fay are the first we know
to have issued a formal endorsement of a candidate. They have endorsed
Kerry. They were also instrumental in developing his disability platform.
To
Howard Dean goes the prize for always stepping up to the plate at
the appropriate time. Dean released his platform on the July 26 anniversary
of the ADA. He issued a statement Oct. 1 to coincide with the start
of the traditional "hire the handicapped" month (now called National
Disability Awareness Month). He issued a statement on Dec. 3, the
International Day of Disabled Persons. On Jan. 13, he issued a statement
about the TN v. Lane ADA case which was in oral arguments before
the Supreme Court that day. This likely signals less about Dean than
about those who are advising him. But still it's not bad to have a
candidate who does speak out at the appropriate times, even if we
know he would not necessarily have had a clue to do so had he not
been prompted. That's what staffs are for, after all.
Dean's
record on disability issues is more problematic, however, simply because,
of all the candidates, he is the only one who actually has an administrative
record. Kerry, NC Sen. John Edwards; MO Rep. Richard A. Gephardt,
OH Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich and CT. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman can all
say (and do say, whenever they're asked) that they supported the ADA.
Some add that they would support restoring it to the law it was before
the Supreme Court hacked away at it; that they fought against confirming
the anti-ADA judges Bush nominated. They all support MiCASSA. They
support full IDEA funding. (Read
candidates' positions on issues from AAPD).
We
can look at Howard Dean's record on carrying out disability policy
as Governor of Vermont. One activist argues that when it comes to
"mental health," the record is less than stellar.
Saying
that "the public mental health system in many states is in shambles
and the federal government does too little to help," Dean in mid-September
proposed
a platform that included "access to health insurance, parity for
insurance coverage of mental health care, integrating mental health
care with other social support systems, improving access to community
care to prevent people with mental illness from being imprisoned and
abandoned, ending rules that discourage work. for 'people with serious
mental illness,' school-based screening and treatment for children.
recovery programs for people with mental illness and public education
to decrease stigmas and raise awareness."
Psychiatric
rights activist Laura Ziegler, though, says Dean is "no ally" of people
with psychiatric disabilities based on his record as Governor of Vermont,
noting that he "heavily promoted" a state bill requiring "forced psychiatric
drugging" and adding that "discrimination against Vermonters with
mental disabilities was an integral part of Governor Dean's mental
health policy." More.
Other
activists are troubled by a remark Dean made at the height of the
Terri
Schiavo feeding-tube-withdrawal battle. In early November, Dean
said he was "appalled" by FL Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature
intervening in the case, ordering the re-insertion of her feeding
tube. "What business is it of the government to interfere with a private
family matter with a right-to-die case?" the Associated Press reported
Dean as saying. To many disability activists who were arguing for
Schiavo to remain alive, Dean's remarks signaled that he did not understand
or care about disability rights opposition to the "right-to-die" cause.
Concerns
about any Democratic candidate's positions, on whatever issue, though,
are at best premature. It will come down to "who can beat Bush?" Right
now there isn't a whole lot of difference between them when it comes
to what they say about disability rights.
As
the campaign season heats up, it will be interesting to see to what
extent any of the candidates incorporates disability rights issues
into his mainstream politicking -- and if he does, which disability
issues he (and his campaign staff) will see as important enough to
speak to "the American people" about.
The
front-runner in this category -- indeed, the only runner in this category
-- is Gephardt, who drew the attention of reporters at the Des Moines
Register and the L.A. Times for speaking out about disability rights
in late December. Times political reporter Nick Anderson wrote in
an article headlined "Gephardt Proposes More for Disabled" in the
Dec. 30 Los Angeles Times.that it was a move to win Iowa Sen.
Tom Harkin's endorsement -- Harkin was the chief sponsor of the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act. It's the first time in this primary
season (and we hope it's not the last) that we've seen a candidate
using disability rights as an issue in a speech that was reported
by a major news outlet. Although the speech was given at the Iowa
School for the Deaf, Anderson reported it as being politically significant.
That's progress, of a sort.
Despite
the auspicious platforms, it's too early to tell if disability is
viewed by the candidates as anything more than a small special interest.
But the extent to which a candidate's campaign moves beyond this thinking
and is able to address issues such as home-based services as issues
of importance to the general electorate will, it seems, signal the
extent to which the candidate takes the issue seriously.
|
Campaign
Desk, a new blog from the Columbia Journalism Review, asks
for your views on campaign coverage -- or lack of coverage. Tell
them when you DON'T hear about disability rights in the campaign.
|
In
the end it will come down to something beyond either candidate: it
will come down to whether we think a Democrat or the present Republican
administration can better serve the cause of disability rights. If
we think the Democrats are better, we will vote for whichever candidate
becomes the nominee.
Between
now and then, however, we can urge the candidates to speak publicly
on the courts' rollback of disability rights protections, on the need
for in-home services, the need to switch our nation's long-term services
system from its institutional bias, the need to fund the IDEA.
And we can watch and listen to see if they do.
Posted
Jan. 19, 2004
Mary
Johnson edits Ragged Edge.
