Yesterday, NY congressman Chuck Rangel referred to Sarah Palin as “disabled” during a news interview. His point was to highlight Palin’s gross inexperience and inadequacey when it comes to foreign policy. Later, he tried to backpedal and claimed that he meant to say Palin was “disadvantaged” and “is an obviously healthy person who in no way fits the description of disabled.”
I agree with Rangel that Palin isn’t qualified to be vice president and has been tokenized by the Republican party in a not-so-subtle attempt to appeal to the white, suburban, female demographic. What I have a hard time with is the notion that someone who DOES “fit the description of disabled” is somehow unworthy of our respect and lacking authority. Rangel’s comment — and pathetic attempt at retraction — was deeply ableist in that it hinged on the premise that people with disabilities deserve our pity and charity, but not our respect and obedience. We must be “kind” to someone who is disabled, but we should not take them seriously if they are in a position of authority. I would challenge Rangel to share what exactly he means by “the description of disabled.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I didn’t see it but that is a bit frightening. Good catch! I’m guessing, he’d never be able to give a satisfactory explanation.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:41 am
The amazing part is that is yet another example of how little these people (by that I mean politicians of both parties) understand disability at all. The Republican who believes it is “disgraceful” that Rangel referred to Palin as disabled doesn’t have a problem with the comment that “you got to be kind to the disabled”, just that Rangel used it against Sarah Palin, since she has a disabled child.
Again, this is part of my frustration as a disillusioned progressive - watching the party that claims to want to protect the rights of all citizens, no matter how voiceless, continue to not understand and not care about those who actually don’t have enough of a voice. Makes me want to strap them down and show them a version of Bullworth with Beatty in a wheelchair, or hooking up with Taye Diggs instead of Halle Berry.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am
My first question is why do we have to be kind to the disabled? Being disabled does not give me some special bubble around me to protect me from the big bad world. I do not need or want to be treated kindly, pitied, or cured just because I am disabled. Those are things that should be passed out to all people if someone feels the need to do so.
My disability does not make my opinion or whether I am qualified to do a job relevant. Why I may or may not be qualified has to do with several different factors; education, experience, ability, personality, likability just to name a few. Disability may actually make a person more qualified depending on the job that needs to be done. Disability can make a person more determined, a drive to succeed, the ability to survive in tough situations, kinner instincts as to what is important from many different perspectives, give us a chance to show our abilities and you just might not see our disabilities.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
How about we just be kind to everyone?