The prospect of a conservative revolution has raised the anxiety of the predominantly liberal disability leadership. Whether the diverse disability community shares the policy objectives of the leadership, and its concern over the conservative agenda, is not clear. This article considers four major branches of the conservative movement—fiscal conservatism, the federalist movement, social and religious conservatism, and libertarianism—and their compatibility with the independent living movement, a social movement supported by most people with disabilities. It concludes that the two social movements have several consistent tenets, such as individual responsibility, personal and economic freedom, and self-reliance. Conversely, liberal policies, which tend to encourage dependency, appear in direct conflict with the independent living philosophy. The Americans with Disabilities Act is examined as a disability policy that is largely consistent with conservative principles. The article concludes that, to achieve their policy goals, people with disabilities should seek representation on both sides of the political aisle and should develop proposals that will be acceptable to conservatives and moderates as well as liberals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Throughout this article, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are used in the modern sense. “Conservatism” is used to refer to a political ideology with the fundamental tenets that the role of government should be strictly limited and that personal responsibility and individual freedom should have primacy in formulating public policy. The term “liberalism” is used to connote a political ideology with the fundamental tenets that there should be collective responsibility for the social and economic problems of our citizens and that government has a vital role in solving such problems. The term “moderate” is used to refer to intermediate positions that recognize a legitimate role for government that is neither as extensive as that demanded by liberals nor as limited as that demanded by conservatives. It should be noted that “conservative” is not used to connote resistance to changes in the status quo. Either conservative or liberal policies can be reactionary, in the sense of resisting progressive change, depending upon the existing state of national policy.
2.
2. Louis Harris and Associates, N.O.D./ Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities (New York: Louis Harris and Associates, 1994).
3.
3. Ibid.
4.
4. Louis Harris and Associates, N.O.D./ Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities (New York: Louis Harris and Associates, 1996).
5.
5. The independent living movement is also often referred to as the disability rights movement. Whether these are two separate but overlapping social movements or two terms for the same movement is a matter of debate. Discussion about the independent living movement typically focuses specifically on environmental barriers and the ability of individuals with disabilities to live in their communities. Discussion about the disability rights movement typically focuses more broadly on the autonomy of individuals with disabilities to pursue their goals, whatever those goals might be.
6.
idem, Environmental Accessibility and Independent Living Outcomes: Directions for Disability Programs and Research (East Lansing: Michigan State University, University Center for International Rehabilitation, 1981).
7.
7. Harris and Associates, N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities (1994).
8.
8. Frank Bowe, Rehabilitating America: Toward Independence for Disabled and Elderly People (New York: Harper & Row, 1980).
9.
9. Andrew I. Batavia, “Relating Disability Policy to Broader Public Policy: Understanding the Concept of Handicap,”Policy Studies Journal, 21(4): 735-739 (1993).
10.
10. It is the author's belief that the vast majority of people with disabilities are capable of gainful employment, irrespective of their functional limitations, and that the primary impediments to their obtaining and maintaining a job are environmental barriers, such as inaccessible workplaces, and attitudinal barriers, such as employer prejudice against disability. Experience has demonstrated that people with very significant functional limitations, such as high-level quadriplegia and respirator dependence, have been able to work if given appropriate training and support.
11.
11. DeJong, Environmental Accessibility and Independent Living.
12.
12. Bowe, Rehabilitating America.
13.
Carolyn L. Weaver , “Privatizing Vocational Rehabilitation: Options for Increasing Individual Choice and Enhancing Competition,”Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5(1):53-76 (1994).
14.
idem, Social Security: Disability Rolls Keep Growing, While Explanations Remain Elusive, report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, Senate, U.S. Congress, 103d Cong., 2d sess., 8 Feb. 1994; idem, Federal Disability Programs Face Major Issues, testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, Senate, U.S. Congress, 104th Cong., 1st sess., 3 Apr. 1995.
15.
15. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Bulletin: Annual Statistical Supplement, 1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995).
16.
16. Berkowitz, Disabled Policy.
17.
Andrew I. Batavia , Gerben DeJong, and Louise McKnew, “Toward a National Personal Assistance Program: The Independent Living Model of Long-Term Care for Persons with Disabilities,”Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 16(3): 525-547 (1992).
18.
18. Some would argue that such innovation is possible currently as a result of flexibility that has been incorporated into federal programs, such as state waivers under the federal Medicaid program. Under such policies, states must request from the federal government the permission for specific deviations from the strict requirements of the program. While it is true that greater flexibility has been achieved in recent years due to such policies, the amount of innovation is probably significantly less than would be achieved if states had complete freedom to design their programs.
19.
19. Many libertarians, however, would be critical of the amount of government intervention that social and religious conservatives demand in the area of law enforcement and with respect to certain personal decisions (such as those concerning abortion).
20.
idem, On the Threshold of Independence (Washington, DC: National Council on Disability, 1988).
21.
21. National Council on Disability, ADA Watch: Year One—Report to the President and the Congress on Progress in Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (Washington, DC: National Council on Disability, 1993).
22.
idem, “The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Current State of Disability Policy,”Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1(3):65-75 (Fall 1990).
23.
Andrew I. Batavia , “Health Care, Personal Assistance, and Assistive Technology: Are They Key to Independence or Dependence for People with Disabilities?” in Disability, Cash Benefits and Work, ed. J. L. Mashawet al. (Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1996).
