Sunday night’s Democratic debate went a long way towards clarifying the choice ahead for Democrats, at least between the two frontrunners. Once again, none of the candidates said anything intentional about disability policy … apart from the apparently bipartisan drawing of false connections between gun violence and mental health. Still, disabled voters should find the some of the choices being put to Democrats very familiar.

Let’s start by acknowledging the moderators, NBC’s Lester Holt and Andrea Michell. They did an unusually good job, especially with their very first and very last questions. At the start of the debate, they asked each candidate to name top three priorities for their first 100 days in the Presidency. The last question was an open-ended invitation for the candidates to talk about any subject not already discussed in the debate.

Throughout the rest of the debate, we heard what the candidates want to do and a bit about how they would do it, but these beginning and ending questions bookended the debate with a look into each candidate’s priorities and choices. What is important to them? Can they focus their energies on a few key issues and explain them clearly?

Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton gave the least clear, focused answer. Bernie Sanders knocked out three distinct policy objectives with ease. I say “surprisingly” because Clinton has so far seemed like a more disciplined, practical thinker, while Sanders deals in broad strokes. That’s what I thought anyway. This opening question revealed that Sanders is, if anything, a bit too focused on a few high-stakes issues, while Clinton knows that a President can’t really choose only three priorities, because the most important issues are all connected, and in the Presidency other needs and events will always intrude.

The candidates’ answers to the final, open-ended question then solidified their distinct positions within a solidly liberal Democratic field. Clinton is all about policy details and a cautious defense of hard-won gains. Sanders is all about taking on entrenched interests once and for all, and finally shooting for the moon on policy objectives Democrats have held dear for decades. As for Martin O’Malley, would probably be an excellent, sensible candidate for Democrats in a less contentious election year, when the costs of failure might not be quite as high.

This year, the choice for Democrats isn’t about who is more or less liberal, which candidate is the most articulate, or whose policies are more detailed and developed. It all seems to come down to two fundamental questions that Democratic voters will have to answer for themselves:

1. Be bold or be safe, and

2. What really stands in our way?

Disabled people know all about such questions, especially those of us interested in disability rights and policy change. We wrestle with these questions all the time.

Should we go all out for the disability policies we know are the best? Or, do we take smaller bites, moving cautiously, avoiding undue disruption and the risk of making things worse for ourselves if our ideal plans don’t work out?

For example, how do we move long term care funding away for nursing homes towards home care, without endangering services disabled people already use and depend on?

Can we close sheltered workshop and ending pay below minimum wage without scaring people who don’t yet feel ready for competitive employment?

Will ending the practice of segregated, self-contained classrooms in favor of full inclusion be better for everyone, right away, or is there still an unavoidable period of uncomfortable transition? And do we trust the educational system to make the change without short-changing today’s disabled students?

We also constantly debate the true nature of our opposition.

What’s the real obstacle to disability rights progress? Are monolithic, corrupt forces of ableism arrayed against us, determined to block our success? Or, are good disability policies genuinely hard to design and implement, even by people who all agree on the basics? Is it all about systemic barriers, or do individual, cultural prejudices about disability play a role as well?

Democrats face similar questions in the current Presidential campaign.

Bernie Sanders knows where liberal Democrats want to go, policy-wise. For the most part, even his main rival, Hillary Clinton, agrees with goals like universal health insurance, college without debt, and paid family leave. But Clinton may be right to worry about the details, not only how to get these policies implemented, but also about the potential for things going wrong and getting even worse if we risk the progress we’ve already made on these issues.

Sanders rightly asks why we should dither when polls say most Americans favor things like single-payer health insurance and free college education. Clinton reminds us, based on bitter experience, that there are a thousand ways for big projects to go wrong … especially with a whole other party in play that is dead-end committed to opposing even the idea of what liberal Democrats want to do.

Meanwhile, Sanders blames past progressive failures on the power of the rich and big corporations. This may be valid, but it also allows him to sidestep the fact that millions of Americans have a fundamentally different idea of what’s wrong and right about America. He sometimes seems unwilling to deal directly with the fact that some Americans harbor deep-seated prejudices that may be just as powerful as corporate lobbyists and Super PACs. O’Malley was the only candidate on Sunday who seems to grasp that resistance to change is both systemic and personal. Sadly, he’s not very good at articulating this.

So, while neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem to think it’s important to address or even mention disability issues in their debates, (Kasich’s startling mention of nursing homes and home care aside), maybe we as disabled voters should be helping our fellow voters without disabilities work through these fundamental questions … questions we as disabled people struggle with every day.

One final note. Hillary Clinton tried her best to deal with an awkward question about what role former President Bill Clinton would play in her administration. She finally said that she would send “Bill” around the country to talk to people and gather up good ideas. I don’t know whether that was a good answer to the question, but asking disabled people what to do about disability policy sounds like a great idea, whoever is elected in November.

Contact: Andrew Pulrang