Explosions, Verbal and Otherwise: The Second Democratic Debate

The terrorist attacks in Paris sent shockwaves across the globe, including through Saturday’s democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa. CBS moderators asked the candidates – Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley – to replace their planned opening statements with a reflection on the events in Paris. It was reported that Sanders was unhappy about this change, preferring to spend time discussing economic rather than national security issues. Indeed, it quickly became clear that foreign policy is not within Sanders’ wheelhouse when he claimed that climate change is “absolutely” the greatest threat to national security.

Clinton had her own cringe-inducing moments, as well. As soon as Sanders had the opportunity to discuss income inequality, he highlighted Clinton’s affiliations with Wall Street. Clinton declared that she receives campaign donations from bankers because she “represented New York, and [] represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked… We were attacked in downtown where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild.” For the first time, this author agreed with Sanders – such an answer is “not good enough.” In fact, it was preposterous.

O’Malley agreed with Sanders on Clinton’s coziness with Wall Street, and joined Clinton in opposing Sanders’ position on the Second Amendment. His most memorable moment of the night, however, regarded immigration. After making remarks about “immigrant-bashing, carnival barker Republican Donald Trump,” O’Malley wondered why Republicans haven’t come to the negotiating table. This, of course, is the same candidate who talked glowingly of Baltimore, not realizing that most Americans still remember images of the city in flames.

Some topics touched more directly on the interests of those with disabilities. Sanders talked about wanting marginalized groups to feel energized and welcome to join the socialist “revolution.” One platform of his revolution would be a single-payer health care system – “Medicare for all.” Unfortunately, Medicare only covers acute medical conditions. It won’t purchase wheelchairs unless beneficiaries are home-bound, and only covers short-term personal assistance services. Medicare for all is a box too small for many with disabilities.

Clinton pounced on Sanders’ plans, arguing that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) should remain in place. While she admitted that there is room for improvement, she cast doubt over whether eliminating the ACA would keep control of health care in Washington, as opposed to individual states. She picked on Iowa Governor Terry Branstad: “I have to tell you, I would not want, if I lived in Iowa, Terry Branstad administering my health care.” Could Clinton do a better job? Does anyone remember 1993?

Another point of contention between the candidates was student loan reform. Sanders supports “free” tuition; Clinton supports “free” community college; and O’Malley supports lowered interest rates for those students borrowing from the government. Many people with physical disabilities have to go to college, as manual labor is not an option. This author graduated owing $83,000. Back then, the idea of “free” college might have been enticing. But now, as a member of the middle class, I’m struggling to repay my own debt and don’t have the cash in my wallet to pay for someone else’s, too.

In conclusion, the candidates were able to differentiate themselves from one another on many important policy issues. Sanders is a far-left option, O’Malley is a bit closer to the center, and Clinton floats with the tides of the Party. However, none of them appear yet to have a comprehensive package that genuinely addresses the needs of many Americans – those with disabilities.

Emily Munson is a disability rights attorney from Indianapolis. Her interests include politics, bioethics, and all things German.

Contact: Emily Munson