It kind of snuck up on me, but the sixth Republican Presidential Debate had more in it about disability than any of the debates of either party so far. That’s not saying much, since I’ve heard very little about disability so far, but it’s an improvement. And though most of what the candidates said about disability didn’t impress, the variety of angles on disability displayed in this debate was encouraging.

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich squared off in this round, and it got nasty. They beat the heck out of Democrat Hillary Clinton, took a few swipes at Bernie Sanders, and smacked each other around a good deal as well. If you want an analysis of the whole debate, I recommend this USA Today / FactCheck.org article, and this analysis by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com. As usual, I won’t go over the debate point by point. Instead, I want to look at how disability cropped up, directly and indirectly, and what that might mean to voters with disabilities.

Mental Illness and Gun Control

The first real mention of any disability issue came, once again, with the debate over gun control. Several candidates repeated their formulation that the problem isn’t guns, but “mental health.” They’ve said this before, but this time there were two important differences. First, Trump specifically cited the closure of “hospitals” as part of the problem, which goes beyond mere stigma about mentally disabled people, and hints at something like putting them back into institutions. Second, Jeb Bush called the linkage between mass shootings and mental illness “bipartisan,” and he’s probably right. It is considered more or less sensible and acceptable to blame gun violence on mental health problems, even though crime and mental health statistics don’t bear this out. A lot of people won’t even recognize this as a disability issue, but it absolutely is, and I’m pretty sure it’s going to come up again, maybe in the next Democratic Debate. This is one issue where bipartisan agreement is more of a nightmare than a dream.

Law Enforcement and Police Reform

The candidates also tipped their hands indirectly in their responses to questions about police shootings and police reform. Christie stated very strongly that, “The police are the most mistreated people in this country,” implying that virtually any criticism of police brutality or overreaction is in some way a betrayal and therefore illegitimate. This has implications for the racial aspects of the issue and movements like #BlackLivesMatter, but also how police practices threaten people with disabilities, including those with mental illness, cognitive disabilities, and autism. Christie supports the police unconditionally, and is very disdainful of any other way of thinking about the issue. John Kasich, on the other hand takes a much more balanced, practical approach that suggests he is at least partially aware that police shootings are often a problem that responsible lawmakers need to address with more than reactionary rhetoric.. Unfortunately, Kasich isn’t very good at making the case for this perspective. He seemed more sensible, but not as emotionally compelling as Christie.

Social Security vs. Social Security

The first real, direct mention of disability came with a question about “entitlements,” direct government payments to individuals based on retirement status, poverty, and / or disability. The premise for this discussion is that entitlements are too expensive to be sustained, but too valuable to be easily reduced. Christie touted his entitlement reform program but didn’t describe it. He took the opportunity, however, to state flatly that last year’s deal to bolster the Social Security Disability fund … and therefore avoid a huge benefit cut this year … was simply stealing from the Social Security Retirement Fund to give to Disability. He didn’t argue this, or explain it. He just stated it as fact, and as obviously, (to him), morally reprehensible. This definitely counts as addressing a disability issue. Yet, he didn’t say anything about the disabled people involved, or what it would have meant to let the Disability Fund run out. Nor did anyone else chime in either way. For disabled voters, it was a win for the subject to come up, but a loss for not being explained or explored, only vilified. Christie took us a step closer to pitting disabled people against retirees, without any recognition that the two groups often overlap.

Taking On Nursing Homes

By far the most startling and potentially valuable discussion of disability wasn’t a discussion, but rather an out-of-the-blue mention of an issue well known to anyone who visits the CDR website … the institutional bias that keeps disabled and elderly people stuck in nursing homes. In his closing statement, Kasich said that as Governor of Ohio, he fought “the nursing home industry” to make it so “Mom and Dad can stay in their own home instead of going into a nursing home.” I’m not sure what he did on this issue, or whether it was done well. I suspect the actual details were messy. However, from a rhetorical standpoint, it was as far as I know the first time this absolutely core issue for disabled people was talked about so positively and with such conceptual accuracy in a national political debate. My main worry is that to most viewers, the topic will have seemed like an oddball policy mention by a man generally viewed as an oddball candidate in the Republican field. I haven’t seen any post-debate analysis mention it, and unless we in the disability community follow up in some way, it may be forgotten entirely. Still, it woke me right up, and made me glad I stuck with the debate all the way to the end.

Trying to spot and make something out of these small but significant references to disability feels a bit like blowing on a few tiny sparks to get a fire going in subzero weather. Still to date, nothing about disability has had nearly the emotional punch of, say, terrorism, national security, or even tax policy in these debates in either party.

In the Republican field especially, I notice another problem with implications for disabled voters. The most sensible, level-headed, and practical ideas discussed in the debate got the weakest, most tepid applause. Disability issues are, by definition, complex and wonky, requiring the deep knowledge and careful weighing of pros and cons that usually come from dull “insiders,” not from this year’s more popular “outsiders.” I’m not a Republican, but if I was, I would still want to hear more from the candidates who write their policy with Sharpies, as opposed to the splashy frontrunners who paint their positions with big, hairy brushes dipped in blood red paint. Disability policy is inherently emotional, too, for us anyway. But otherwise it doesn’t come easily to loud demagogues and simplifiers.

I will be very interested to see if some of the same patterns appear in this weekend’s Democratic debate, where the candidates are similarly split between practical insiders and bold, but somewhat vague outsiders. Which do you prefer? Which is better for the advancement of sound and liberating disability policy? Keep watching, and keep blowing on those sparks.

Contact: Andrew Pulrang