I watched both political conventions gavel to gavel. It is easy to do so when you live in Hawaii and are “retired”. No speakers at either convention included a reference to people with disabilities in their speeches. No speakers represented the disability community.
I was a volunteer on the Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush campaigns. One thing accomplished in both Bush campaigns was the inclusion of the phrase “individuals with disabilities” in any listing of categories of people (Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, disadvantaged, women, etc.) in speeches, policy papers, and media releases. That one simple move gave visibility to the disability community in many contexts, and enhanced their value among Republicans as a voting block that should not be ignored.
Back when the Americans with Disabilities Act (enacted July 26, 1990) was being drafted the disability community found supporters among Republicans and Democrats. These alliances were sustained on a bipartisan basis for some time, leading to enactment of other legislation important to people with disabilities. In an 18-month period beginning in January of 1998, six pieces of disability-specific legislation were enacted and became law, a record. Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate. Bill Clinton was President.
Now the House of Representatives and Senate are evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Bipartisanship is rare. One of my latest efforts is a case in point. As I have indicated in earlier blog posts, I am trying to identify a Republican, to be the first Republican, to co-sponsor legislation, that would establish a commission to assess the value of building a national museum on disability history and culture. I have had no luck. Several Republican Senators have indicated that they would be willing to be a co-sponsor, but not the first. Senator Casey (Democrat, PA) is the author of the legislation and up for re-election. He will not introduce it without a Republican co-sponsor. In this election cycle, no Republican or Democrat, wants to help the other side, because the stakes are too high, and they don’t want to be blamed for contributing to the success of the other side. The House Bipartisan Disability Caucus WILL introduce the legislation after it is introduced in the Senate.
In my experience, Democrats and Republicans divide legislation into two categories – legislation that affects people directly, and everything else. Democrats must support the former, so it’s hard to get their attention for any one thing and you must do so repeatedly. Republicans are usually interested in the latter category, but if you can educate them about how legislation would promote human achievement and ability to contribute to society, you have them forever.
People with disabilities are not all Democrats. But as a practical matter that’s what both Democrats and Republicans think. Democrats think they don’t need to work for the votes of people with disabilities. Republicans think that they will not receive votes from people with disabilities, so why help them. We need to change the way Democrats and Republicans view us if we want to accomplish anything in the remainder of this Congress or the next one. I am hoping that the museum legislation may be one modest way to do that.
Politicians, regardless of party, pay close attention to three things – votes, money, and positive public attention. If the disability community is going to have any clout going forward, it must organize more aggressively, engage with elected officials of both parties, develop allies in both parties, and raise money during election cycles through a political action committee. Twenty percent of the U.S. population is estimated to have some type of disability. It could and should be viewed as a substantial voting block with influence within each party. That is not the case right now.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
