A boy attending a recent Town Hall Meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire asked Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton a question about disability. On a scale of 1 to 10 … 10 being the absolute ideal combination of policy specifics, respectful choice of words, and positive but unsentimental body language … I give Clinton’s answer a 6.

First, let’s look at the question …

While the boy mentions autism and developmental disabilities specifically, his question is general. He asks what can be done to “help” disabled people. He doesn’t mention any particular program, service, or policy idea, but instead opens a door for Clinton to say pretty much anything at all about disability.

What does Clinton do right?

– She doesn’t talk about curing or preventing autism or developmental disabilities. Rather, she built the first part of her answer around two related civil rights issues, showing that she does, to at least some extent, understand that disability issues are social and political, not just medical. She also demonstrated some awareness of the history of disability rights, and even some indirect policy experience related to disability.

– Clinton doesn’t talk about disability in terms of hardship, suffering, or sadness … or bravery and heroism for that matter. She also steers clear, (mostly), of autism panic words like “epidemic,” and she never refers to any disability as a “disease.”

– Towards the end of her answer, she mentions a few somewhat specific things disabled people need help with.

– Clinton mentions supporting families of disabled people, but also disabled people themselves.

What could Clinton have done better?

– While she does mention disabled people as individuals, she gravitates a bit more towards addressing disability as a “family” issue. This indicates that Clinton, like many or even most politicians, tends to view disability mainly from a non-disabled perspective, and perhaps assumes that her audience is non-disabled people, and only secondarily disabled voters themselves. This is not alarming, because it is so common, but it is disappointing.

– Clinton asks how many people in the audience know someone with autism, noting the large number of hands raised. But she doesn’t ask if anyone in the audience has autism themselves, or any other disability. Again, disabled people constitute a second-hand, indirect audience addressed mainly through family and professionals.

– While she doesn’t come close to the fear-mongering about autism we hear from some of the other candidates, Clinton seems at one point to flirt with the darker side of autism rhetoric. She cites a statistic on how many people have some kind of autism. Her tone suggests it’s a high number, but she doesn’t actually say whether or not it’s an unusually high number or a higher rate than it used to be. Still, it feels like she’s coming awfully close to acknowledging, if not endorsing, autism panic.

– Although Clinton does finally touch on some policy specifics, she isn’t as specific as she could be. Housing is a problem for disabled people, and families do worry about what happens to their disabled sons and daughters when they die. But it doesn’t take much specialized knowledge of disability issues to come up with these examples. And having already alluded to civil rights and discrimination at the start of her answer, it’s surprising that Clinton doesn’t cite disability discrimination and bad policies shaped by ableism as actual problems for disabled people today.

Hillary Clinton gives a decent answer, with there are encouraging signs, but also warning signs to watch for. Frankly, considering the overall quality of disability talk from politicians, the bar is pretty low. Maybe it’s time to raise it a bit.

If other candidates of both parties have more chances to answer disability-related questions like this what should we, as disabled voters, look for in their answers? I suggest that rather than a checklist of policy positions, we should first look for three things:

1. A plainspoken, empathetic, but unsentimental tone. Don’t waste limited answer time drooling praise and sympathy on disabled people or their families.

2. Either a broad but complete survey of the disability policy landscape, or one really specific and original idea to address a specific problem disabled people face.

3. An intention to consult disabled people and disability rights organizations about how to approach disability issues.

Number three might be the most electrifying thing of all, if we ever hear it. When asked “What would you do for disabled people?” a politician can always reply, “I don’t really know, so the first thing I’ll do is ask disabled people.”

I would give a candidate with the courage and insight to say that a long, serious look.

Contact: Andrew Pulrang