Christopher Reeve spoke to the Democrats gathered in convention in Chicago tonight (Monday, August 26). He talked of the need for research. He wants a cure for spinal cord injury. The speech was described as moving. If you saw it, what did you think? Was it a good disability rights speech? Was it a pity-wringer? Fix the disabled people and get them out of their wheelchairs? Is Christopher Reeve a spokesman for you?
To start with, read these insightful remarks from an historian who specializes in disability issues and images. And some response to him. Then add your opinions.
By Paul K. Longmore
Due to the strenuous and commendable labors of disabled activists within the Democratic party and the Clinton administration, Christopher Reeve incorporated some important lines about the ADA and disability rights into his Monday evening Democratic Convention address. We should not underestimate this achievement, coming as it did at the last minute and against considerable counterpressures. We all should thank our colleagues working quietly but firmly to get those civil-rights claims into Reeve's speech.
Mr. Reeve clearly found the words he was compelled to utter distasteful to him, delivering them grim-faced and grudgingly. He only warmed up and became animated in his speech when he got to the subject of cure. He will continue to be a problem for disability-rights activists. His public role will likely become more obstructionist regarding the civil-rights of people with disabilities. We must fashion strategies of response to his message, but this will not be easy.
He is already a cultural icon, respected, beloved. He literally embodies even as he espouses a series of American myths: the victory of the human spirit over the worst of fates; the can-do triumphalism of American medicine, science and technology that can solve any problem; the preference for "non-political" technical fixes to solve complex social problems; the avoidance of social realities, specifically the redefinition of conditions of social injustice as problems of individual tragedy and coping; the refusal to see "disability" as an issue of institutionalized prejudice and discrimination; the flight into cure as a way to evade confronting societal and personal prejudice.
The Reeve phenomenon should be located within the broader backlash against disability rights. It provides an avenue of escape that allows U.S. society and the government to pretend they are doing something for disabled people, in fact, giving us what we really need, cure.
But responding to Reeve is not the most pressing issue at this moment. A larger message appeared at last night's convention. And frankly, the program was more dismaying than I had anticipated. Jim Brady's walking served the purpose of underlining the individualizing of disability as medical affliction and heroic but pathetic personal striving. His and his wife's appearance was deliberately dovetailed with Reeve's. The combined message was about personal tragedy, pain and suffering linked to an image of a government and a president who feel their pain.
The specific disability message was that disability is, in Sarah Brady's word, "devastating" to families. The solutions to the problems of disabled people were presented as prevention and cure.
The annoyed tight-lipped Reeve said the few lines forced on him about civil rights, but the dominant message was medical -- medical solutions for medical problems.
These performances surely played well with most viewers, but in terms of the disability constituency they were a serious political mistake. The Democratic party and the Clinton campaign must offer other messages that address the real concerns of disabled voters.
It is important that other disabled people have been scheduled to speak at the convention, particularly our highly respected leader Justin Dart. But as much as we all hold him in deep regard, Justin is our hero and not well-known by the public. He cannot match Reeve's star power. Michaela Alioto will second Vice President Gore's nomination on Wednesday night. She too is unknown. Thus, their presence will be largely symbolic.
Fred Fay made some important points the other day in this on-going discussion when he talked about the political significance of the number of disabled persons appointed to positions in the Clinton administration and the Clinton re-election campaign. We can add Justin Dart and Michaela Alioto to that list. The presence of all these activists is unprecedented and it is important.
But I have to differ with Fred on one point. I cannot agree that the presence of these, our colleagues, is more important than the policy positions of the administration. That leads me toward my main point: disability issues in the current campaign.
Fred also sent many of us his valuable memo on the disability vote. One central lesson we -- and the Clinton strategists -- should glean from the voting record of the disability constituency is the first lesson of Political Science 1: in U.S. politics, constituencies vote their interests. They vote for politicians who protect and advance those interests, and they punish those politicians when they flout them.
In 1982, the avalanche of letters protesting the Reagan administration's attempt to undercut PL94-142 (now called I.D.E.A.) taught George Bush an important political lesson: the enormous disability constituency would mobilize to defend its interests. In 1988, Mr. Bush remembered that lesson. His pledge to seek passage of the ADA accounted, according to the Harris poll's election post-mortem, for half of his margin of victory. Mr. Dukakis ignored the disability vote and paid the price. A Harris-poll vice-president referred to the disability vote as a "sleeping giant."
The Clinton campaign would do well to keep this political history in mind. It should also note an especially significant feature of the pattern of the disability vote. The constituency does not vote for cure or prevention. Nor does it vote for symbolism or speakers or appointees. It votes for laws, policies and programs. The speakers and the appointees are only important to the constituency insofar as they are able to espouse and advance the constituency's agenda, and insofar as the presence of those speakers and appointees evidences the commitment of elected politicians to supporting that agenda.
Each day this week, President Clinton is announcing policy initiatives that address the concerns of various constituencies. On one day, he should offer a similar announcement targeted to the disability constituency. Undoubtably in his acceptance speech, he will pledge to uphold the ADA. He should make that promise of course, but, given the DOJ's rather lackluster record of enforcement, many activists will perceive his words as no more than election-year rhetoric. So, he must do more.
Mr. Clinton should declare that in his second term he will solve the following two major problems: 1. His administration will present legislation to establish a national Personal Assistance Services program, along the lines ADAPT has been demanding for years. 2. His administration will present legislation to eliminate the work and marriage penalties in SSI and SSDI, adopting the recommendations of the independent, nonpartisan scholarly National Academy of Social Insurance.
In the meantime and until the latter legislation becomes law, the President will direct HHS Secretary Shalala to use her current administrative authority to issue waivers in every state to end these "disincentives." The Secretary will undoubtably oppose this, as she has opposed and obstructed this reform for three-and-a-half years, but disabled voters want it.
Some activists make the compelling argument that Mr. Clinton is better than Mr. Dole. The events of the past week (the signing of the welfare reform bill that will hurt hundreds of thousands of disabled children and enormous numbers of disabled elderly immigrants, and the huge political mistake of last night's convention message) have unfortunately blurred and narrowed the distinction between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole.
Mr. Clinton must give disabled voters powerful, issue-centered, policy-based reasons to vote for him, reasons for disability-rights activists to endorse him and campaign for him. The actions outlined above could counter the negative impressions left in the last few days.
Some activists -- and surely some campaign strategists -- will argue that disabled voters have nowhere else to go. In fact, some dissatisfied disabled activists are talking about voting for Ralph Nader, who has a powerful disability-rights record. This could prove a potent protest vote in crucial states like California.
Other disability-rights activists are weighing short-term risks against long-term possible gains. It seems likely that the U.S. political system has entered on one of its periodic realignments. During the next two election cycles, the political landscape is likely to undergo a major reconfiguration. Some activists contend it might be more effective in the long run to organize and position the disability constituency to emerge as a major bloc in a restructured party system.
I am not advocating any of these strategies. I simply believe they must be taken into account by all of us, and especially by current Clinton campaigners. And I note that some disabled activists are taking a leaf from Mr. Clinton's manual of political pragmatism. When he regards a policy position as likely to advance his chances for re-election, they point out, he chooses that course. They are saying that they can and should be just as pragmatic.
I would welcome responses and disagreements. I hope we can continue our collective conversation. Please invite anyone you think would be interested to join in.
Perhaps we should ultimately expand the discussion to engage other issues, for instance, why are the two men who can at the moment most easily attract media attention Christopher Reeve and Jack Kevorkian? Could it be that currently the media is framing disability issues as cure 'em or kill 'em?
Paul K. Longmore teaches history at San Francisco State University.