And How Will That Work For Disabled People? The 3rd Republican Debate

This is the first of a series of blog posts about the 2016 General Elections. The Republicans have already had three debates. The third was Wednesday night, and the Democrats had their first debate October 13. Even though it’s still 2015, election season is just getting started, like it or not!

I like it. I’m a politics nerd, so elections genuinely excite me. I am also a disabled person. I have had disabilities all of my life, and I have been through six General Elections during my active disability rights career. Yet, I have rarely seen a true mix of my two passions, electoral politics and disability. Most candidates have web pages and policy statements devoted to “Americans with Disabilities,” but they almost never say anything original on the subject and their understanding of disability policy is often rudimentary at best. It’s depressing to see disability issues ignored or treated as afterthoughts, year after year.

On the other hand, maybe it’s not all the candidates’ fault. Maybe we have to take the lead, ask the right questions, and insist on substantive answers. Maybe this election will be different. Maybe we can make it different. At the very least, shouldn’t we pay close attention? Before turning to Wednesday’s Republican debate in Boulder, Colorado, a note about method and tone.

Obviously, I have my own political beliefs. However, this election blog will focus on disability issues, and I will be as fair as possible to all parties, all candidates. That’s fairly easy to do, because disability issues don’t fit neatly into any one political category … Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. There are reasonable, respectable ways to view disability from all points on the political spectrum, and I will try my best to cover all of them. I hope you will discover ways to bring disability concerns to whomever you connect with politically, and also start to view disability issues in a new way, through the lens of your own political convictions.

The Debate

The debate featured 10 Republican candidates for President, questioned by three moderators and a few guest questioners, all of them connected in some way to financial journalism. The theme of the CNBC-sponsored debate was, “Your Money, Your Vote.” The participating candidates were: Ben Carson Donald Trump Marco Rubio Ted Cruz Carly Fiorina Jeb Bush Mike Huckabee Chris Christie John Kasich Rand Paul

Viewing the event as a voter interested in disability issues, here are my main observations:

None of the candidates mentioned disability issues or people with disabilities directly. Most of them didn’t mention disability even indirectly. In fact, they barely mentioined any groups facing barriers to success and self-sufficiency, disabled people or anyone else. None of the candidates spoke well of addressing inequality or expanding opportunity through government action. The prevailing idea throughout was that less government spurs the economy, and when the economy improves, everyone’s lives get better. A few candidates addressed a question about unequal pay for women, but even then they mostly stuck to the idea that a better economy in general will benefit everyone. While there is certainly some truth in that, I’m not sure that disabled people benefit automatically, in quite the same way and to the same extent, when when the economy is booming.

Most of the candidates displayed simmering hostility to the federal government, which funds many programs disabled people rely on. A few like Kasich, Rubio, Huckabee, and Paul seemed interested in trying to “save” Social Security and Medicare, at least for present recipients. But in general, a big theme of the debate was that government screws up everything it tries to do and makes the economy worse. Fiorina went even further and asserted that big government is responsible for inequality, because it favors the wealthy and powerful.

Fiorina also offered an enticing idea, that tax reforms should be simple enough to fit on three sheets of paper. I don’t know if that’s practical, but I think many disabled people would welcome less paperwork. Most of us can also tell stories of government ineptitude. But, does that translate into wanting the government to do less?

On taxes, the candidates argued a bit about whether their proposals would shrink or grow the debt, but all of them asserted their proposals would be fair on the middle class. They talked mostly about percentages though, not dollar amounts. That may be why many studies of candidates’ proposals say they would benefit higher income people more than lower income people. I don’t think income taxes matter quite so much to most disabled people. I do think it matters very much, however, whether a tax plan is good for middle and lower-income people or not, because that’s where most of us are.. It seems like it should be a yes or no answer in each case, yet in the debate, the question was just left hanging. Yes it is! No it isn’t! Well, which is it? Within the debate, we had little chance of finding out.

Another big theme in the debate was that “regulations” of all kinds cost too much, and contribute to everyone’s economic woes. Carson and Fiorina were especially strong on this theme. It’s an appealing idea because … well, who likes being regulated? But, it’s hard to quantify how much these things really cost. Is it what’s really behind economic stagnation? And disabled voters view at least some regulations favorably, things like accessibility standards and the non-discrimination provisions of the ADA.

Huckabee stood out a bit in twice advocating an all-out effort to cure what he termed the four costliest diseases: cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and heart disease. He proposed this as a policy to fix Medicare and improve the economy. This is not quite the same thing as responding to disability issues by promising to fix our disabilities, but it’s a theme we should probably listen for going forward.

Kasich mentioned having cut the growth rate of Medicaid in Ohio from 15% to 2% “without cutting a single person from the rolls.” I would have liked to hear more about how this affected disabled Ohioans on Medicaid.

The two year budget and debt ceiling deal was also a frequent target. Candidates like Paul, Cruz, and Christie characterized it as a blank check for the President. I wish someone had asked directly what should have been done instead to supplement the Social Security Disability Insurance fund and avoid a 20% cut in benefits.

By far the most startling disability-related moment was when Trump suddenly commented on “Gun Free Zones,” calling them “target practice for sickos and for the mentally ill.” Picture him tapping his forefinger to the side of his head as he says it. This is not only incorrect in at least two specific ways, it was jarring at best to hear him speak with so much contempt for people with mental illness, and just assume nobody would object.

Parting Thoughts

I was pleasantly surprised by how much substance there was in the debate, despite being rather chaotic at times. While they got in their digs at each other, the current administration, and especially “the mainstream media,” the candidates also delivered a fair overview of how Republicans see the role of government in the economy.

Based on this debate, I think there are several avenues for Republican candidates to reach out to disabled voters, such as frustration with government dysfunction and the feeling that programs designed to help us sometimes end up holding us back. However, I think that they will have difficulty talking with a constituency like ours. These candidates rely on grand formulas that sound best on a very non-specific, national scale. But our issues are always different, aren’t they? How would these candidates respond to disabled people who want to work, and want to be part of this economic resurgence they all talked about, but need some real, substantial support and even enforced regulations to do it?

Next Republican Debate: Tuesday, November 10, 2015.
Next Democratic Debate: Saturday, November 14, 2015.

Andrew Pulrang is a blogger and podcaster at Disability Thinking. He spent 24 years working in Independent Living in New York State.