Greetings Economists, Speaking for disabled population certain facts are more or less what is to be expected. On Nov 3, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
To which strata of the working class in general and women, Blacks, gay men and lesbians, disabled, etc. in particular do the benefits of electing Democrats (differences between Democrats and Republicans in terms of wages, social program benefits, incarceration rates, unemployment rates, abortion access, civil union and gay marriage support, etc.) accrue?
Small scale services organizations benefit from the Democrats. For example Nancy Pelosi was at the celebration of DREDF (Disabled Rights Education and Defense Fund) a small legal group that sued for disabled kids in the schools. So that schools reflected more assistive technology and access. This Democratic support was reflected nationally in the Americans for Disability Act (ADA), and other laws that DREDF had a significant hand in formulating. So businesses that serve disabilities gain support by Democratic legalities. Nationally the census considers 17% of the U.S. population disabled. Of this broad population (54 million people) roughly 70% of adults are unemployed. This has hardly changed since the sixties. The mass scale of disabled people see little legislation that benefits them since the sixties height of welfare programs. These stats are available from the Census. They are taken broadly as well as narrowly defined. So that the percentage of adult/children who are blind is known. And so on. The ADA bars gathering statistics about disabled employment as a 'source of discrimination'. So statistical information about Disabled Employment is very sparse. Those stats that are kept are treated as company confidential data not available to staff or the public. Mass groups in Disabled Politics spring from the radical segments of the movement primarily because there are no broad scale Disabled social entities for less radical Disabled People. Those wanting to push recognition and for mass support of Disabled Rights. Most People with Disabilities (this is People first language used by the support structure as a jargon to show Disabled Rights) are funneled into narrow groups related to their type of disability. Blind with the Blind, as we see recently with the Deaf protests at Gallaudet in which Deaf community advocates they are not 'Disabled'. As far as the left is concerned, it has been open to PWD (People with disabilities) for example Helen Keller was a lefty. But the social conception of what Disability was in Socialism, was tied to a global working class conception. So that what might be specific Disabled perspectives on social structure were not prominent though there in Socialist movements. The more difficult layers of Disability like those which include cognition were still reflective of the previous milieu attitudes to say for example; retards, and crazy people. The Soviets would sometimes claim that having the wrong position to Socialism was a sign of being crazy. Implying the right attitudes made one sane. This view of oppositional cognition is a hold over from Christian views of mental disabilities, that opposition is a sin. Thanks, Doyle
