Disappointing, But Not A Waste Of Time Democratic Presidential Debate: November 14, 2015, Des Moines, Iowa

It may be time to stop expecting disability issues to come up in these early Presidential Primary debates. That doesn’t mean debates are a waste of our time.

The question going into Saturday night’s Democratic Presidential debate in Des Moines wasn’t whether a Democratic President would support and defend programs that support and empower disabled Americans. Of course they would. The question was whether the three remaining Democratic candidates … Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley … would offer anything new or improved. The answer was both reassuring and frustrating.

Yes. At least two candidates, Clinton and Sanders, proposed new initiatives that would probably benefit disabled people along, with other poor, working class, and marginalized groups. Both advocated substantial improvements in health care, benefits like Social Security, and higher education funding. O’Malley generally agreed and offered mostly minor modifications to the proposals of the other two.

And no. None of the candidates offered any insights on disability-specific needs or policies. They only mentioned disabled people indirectly, through mentions of wounded veterans and through the misleading seduction of citing mental health when gun violence is the topic, much like the Republican candidates in their debates. None of the Democratic candidates got even close to describing policies designed specifically to address disability issues. In this way, too, the Democratic debate was similar to the last two Republican events. The policy content was vastly different, but their focus was much the same.

Before we blame the candidates for ignoring us, though, it’s worth remembering that candidates in a debate answer questions put to them, and on Saturday, as in previous debates, the questions were almost uniformly broad. If moderators don’t ask, candidates most likely won’t answer.

The only questions asked about any specific group of Americans were about race relations. This, at least, opened up the possibility that the Democrats might reveal their general approach to disadvantaged, socially marginalized and legally oppressed people. In the event, they voice little more than vague support for protest, and a generic concern for addressing injustice. That’s better than nothing, but not much.

While the last two Republican debates dealt mostly with the economy, the second Democratic debate at least took in a broader range of topics, including immigration, minimum wage, candidates’ attitudes towards Wall Street, health care, race relations, and higher education.

The first questions, though, were about foreign policy and security, in response to Friday night’s terrorist attacks in Paris. Unfortunately, the questions were pretty superficial … more about rhetoric and perception than about what to actually do about terrorism. The candidates’ answers weren’t much better. They seemed conscious of what they were “supposed to say,” but didn’t offer much original thought on the subject. They spent more time and energy on how to refer to the terrorists than on what to do about them. Nobody said anything awful about national security, but nobody broke new ground, either. If we do get our wish and hear a substantial disability-related debate question in a national debate, this could be how the candidates respond … with careful, nit-picky phrasing meant to satisfy our sensibilities, covering over old, low-calorie thinking.

Nevertheless, as with the Republican debates, it was easy to learn about the Democrats’ basic policy positions, especially their approach to the economy. The Democrats’ formula is, broadly speaking: raise the federal minimum wage and increase taxes on higher incomes, in order to raise income for the poor and working class, and fund better health care, strengthen entitlements like Social Security, and pay for debt free or tuition free higher education for everyone. The outlines are clear and distinct, much as the Republicans’ anti-tax, anti-regulation, high-tide-lifts-all-boats prosperity policies were in the Republican debates. Whether these policies are any good is another question, but at least their agendas are there for all to see and evaluate.

The two parties have nearly polar opposite philosophies, but based on their answers, both parties so far seem to have crafted policies intended for the mainstream. We are left to figure out for ourselves how they would work for us.

What about the candidates themselves?

Sanders was all about three big ideas … raising the minimum wage, converting to a single-payer health insurance system that covers literally everyone, and, above all, overthrowing the power of corrupt corporate money in politics that he believes is the reason these policies haven’t been implemented already. He stuck to these ideas no matter what actual topic was being discussed. Will he do the same if asked a more narrowly focused question about disability policy?

Clinton displayed her command of policy, and her experience with and near the Presidency. She also contrasted her approach with that of Sanders, suggesting that while some of her proposals might be less bold and exciting than his, they are more likely to be practical and therefore more likely to be implemented. We might expect her disability policy ideas to be detailed and well-researched, though it’s not clear how deeply she understands the concerns of disabled people.

Meanwhile, O’Malley was left mostly responding to Clinton and Sanders, and in some ways trying to harmonize them. Yet, he also showed some signs of empathy that the other two didn’t display. His comment that that calling soldiers “boots on the ground” is callous distantly resonated with how we as disabled people dislike being referred to impersonally, as “patients” or “victims” or “THE disabled.”

Was this debate helpful to disabled voters? Let’s ask the questions we asked after the last Republican debate:

Did the candidates in Saturday’s debate say anything about disability policy or disabled people? Not specifically. There were only a few indirect mentions and throwaway references.

Did the debate provide a useful snapshot of how the candidates’ policies would affect disabled people? Yes, indirectly. All three say they would try to solidify and expand some of the kinds of basic services that disabled people often struggle to obtain and keep, such as healthcare and higher education. We don’t know yet if they would propose anything new, but it seems like they would at least support the programs and efforts we are already familiar with.

What could the candidates do, within the parameters of their existing beliefs and philosophies, to appeal to disabled voters? All three candidates could easily appeal to at least some segment of disabled voters, since their policies have immediate appeal. However, they need to provide detailed proposals on disability-specific issues, and something more than more of the same. They also need to show that they understand where the disability rights movement is today. It matters a lot to us how they want do things, not just what they want do.

In the end, debates may be the wrong place to look for disability policy discussions. We may yet hear candidates cite disability issues in and ideas in the right context and with genuine insight. We may convince moderators to ask a niche question about disability … maybe through something like a coordinated Twitter hashtag, the one CBS News used last night: #DemsDebate. But, it may be more fruitful to look at the candidates’ websites as they grow and add policy positions. Either way, even when disability is invisible, debates aren’t a waste of time for disabled voters, especially new voters who aren’t already hard-wired into politics.

Debates aren’t that good at picking apart details, but they do generate fairly accurate sketches of what the candidates would like to do. That’s not nothing.

Next Republican Debate: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 – Reno, Nevada.
Next Democratic Debate: Saturday, December 19, 2015 – Manchester, New Hampshire.

Contact: Andrew Pulrang