Discussing Political Ableism

Ableism’s an unusual kind of bigotry. It’s prevalent in how we communicate, and it shapes how we live our lives. The biggest offenders on a macrocosmic scale are politicians, though. The attitudes they have inspire others to behave a certain way, including ableism. However, while politicians can be ableist, they’re still prone to the same issues as everyone else. So while it’s important to keep them accountable, that accountability should be sculpted carefully. Because if we can’t criticize politicians without being ableist, then what’s the point?

I should note that I have no love for politicians myself, but let’s dive in anyway:

The biggest target of ableism right now, in my mind, is Joe Biden. Biden, the oldest president in history, has been the subject of scrutiny over his mental acuity. “Biden’s in cognitive decline!”, I hear. “He has a poor working memory!” And while it might seem like that, since he often appears that way in public briefings, that there’s no official documentation to back this up is a red flag. Especially given what he's disclosed before.

Biden has a speech impediment. In particular, he has a stutter, one that causes him to repeat words, make gaffes and lose his train of thought. I know we think of stutters as repeating syllables constantly, but it’s more varied than that. I’m no expert, but considering that I stumble on my words when I’m nervous, that the 46th POTUS is open about stuttering should be inspiring. It’s not every day that someone with a stutter becomes the leader of a global superpower, right?

Biden’s issues with public speaking, aside from being something many people struggle with, are usually offset by one-on-ones. He can hold himself there, as shown through his Town Hall leading up to the 2020 elections. But outside of that, Biden’s gaffes have no negative impact on his base. If anything, people find them endearing! Especially since he's been in the political eye for over 50 years! If people aren’t used to this by now, then that’s on them!

I’m not saying you can’t criticize or mock Biden. Not only is he notorious for fabricating stories, he also has a history of bad policies and racist behaviour. The number of horrible laws he’s been the author of is only outmatched by cozying up to awful individuals since the 1970’s. Biden has plenty to be critical of as a person, so focusing on his stutter, especially given his age, is really disturbing. At this point, he’ll probably retire from a physical ailment and not a cognitive one.

So that I’m not accused of playing partisan politics, I’ll mention Lindsey Graham next. In the lead-up to his recent re-election, Graham debated his Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison. It wasn’t as high-profile as the presidential election, but it gained notoriety for how Graham was criticized. He was chastised for swaying back and forth and fidgeting, a sign of “insecurity”. Jaime Harrison, on the other hand, was poised and confident-looking.

Far be me to cozy up to Donald Trump’s lapdog, especially given his shortcomings, but criticizing Graham for swaying rubs me the wrong way. We don’t know why he swayed, nor should we surmise. But even if it was “distracting”, so what? Ever heard of stimming? Autistic people stim constantly when they speak, and sometimes when they don’t. I do it all the time, something made worse by my Tourette’s Syndrome. Nervous body movements happen to many people, but some are better at hiding them.

I wouldn’t be uncomfortable if Donald Trump hadn’t used a similar tactic on a Pulitzer-winning journalist with a disability in 2015. If it was unacceptable then, then it shouldn’t be acceptable now. Never mind that Harrison was also moving a lot, even if it wasn’t obvious. Sadly, ableism’s so ingrained in society that we engage in it to denigrate people. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.

As with Biden, Graham has a lot to answer for. Key among this is his homophobia, made worse by his closeted behaviour. But criticizing him for stimming is laziness. It also doesn’t account for why he stims. And I don’t think it’s up to the masses to assume anything, either. Do better.

I’ll end with one more American politician, and I apologize for not expanding my scope: John Fetterman. The youngest example here, Fetterman won his senator race against Doctor Oz. And he did this despite suffering from a stroke. Though making a miraculous recovery in time for his nomination, Fetterman’s incident has been a point of criticism for many. He’s been accused of suffering brain damage, such that it’s “warped his speech”. Far be it from me to come back to politics following a stroke, but really? That’s what we’re going after?

I wouldn’t even be calling this out if it weren’t brought up frequently. So Fetterman had a stroke? So what?! People have strokes for different reasons, and there’s a spectrum. There’s also a spectrum to recovery, something more people would understand if they knew how strokes worked.

It’s disingenuous to bring this up because you don’t like Fetterman. I get not being fond of his policies, but criticizing him over a stroke? And one he recovered from? Do people have nothing better to do than attack a man over a medical crisis before he was voted in? Surely there aren’t more pressing concerns?

Like Biden and Graham, Fetterman’s no saint. He’s been around long enough that there’s room to criticize him, specifically over fracking. But speaking as the son of someone who almost died from a heart attack, I’ve seen people make full recoveries from life-threatening illnesses. Fetterman’s but one example. If anything, his rebound should be a testament to how modern medicine’s essential! But I guess that’s too difficult for some of us to comprehend. Oh well!

In the end, while politicians aren’t saints, we shouldn’t call them out for something they can’t control. Because then it’s bigotry. And bigotry isn’t something you want to be remembered for!