Why Pennsylvania is not ready for a disabled leader

I am a legally blind scholar of disability and political identity, and I have been following the Fetterman-Oz race for U.S. Senate.

Americans generally support legal protections for people with disabilities but are unsure about who should qualify for them. As recent media coverage of Fetterman and other politicians has shown, disability is often considered a political impediment in our elected leaders.

Just think of when Donald Trump sipped a cup of water with two hands during a 2017 speech about national security, or when Joe Biden fell off his bike while cycling in Delaware in June. Both were mocked as weak.

Political elites and news commentators will jump on any sign of disability in their coverage of candidates in order to call into question their decisions and cast them as bad leaders. Oftentimes, disability is incorrectly viewed as a sign that someone is unfit for office.

Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman is receiving this same kind of attention from national news outlets after last week’s debate against Republican candidate Mehmet Oz. CNN called Fetterman’s performance “shaky” and one which “raised questions about the stroke survivor’s fitness to serve.” The headline of Fox News’ post-debate coverage reads: “Health concerns: Pennsylvanians diagnose Fetterman’s fitness to serve.” The New York Times has doubled down on criticisms of Fetterman, noting he was the “least verbally agile” of three Democratic nominees in the April primary.

» READ MORE: Everything you need to know about Pa.’s November 2022 election

And now, the Trump-backed super PAC Make America Great Again (MAGA) Inc. has released an ad that mocks Fetterman and Biden as “LIBERAL. CLUELESS. WEAK.”

Many have taken to Twitter to decry the commentary around Fetterman’s disability as ableist.

Ableism is a belief, often unconsciously expressed, that there is a standard kind of body and mind which is “normal.” People whose minds or bodies deviate from that “normal” should push themselves to act in acceptable ways and hide those signs of “abnormality” from others.

Disabled people, this logic goes, must only be a part of public life in acceptable ways. One example of “acceptable” is participating in a debate without repeating a word or speaking in odd cadences. If a person speaks in any way other than what is deemed “normal,” this throws up red flags around that person’s ability to participate in public life.

The dominant media commentary about Fetterman attempts to flip the question of whether candidates are fit for office back to the voters — but it misses the bigger point: We are simply not ready for this kind of disabled leader.

This is not to say we are not ready for leaders who have certain forms of disability.

You are likely familiar with Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the 54-year-old Democrat from Illinois, or Rep. Dan Crenshaw, the 38-year-old Republican from Texas’ 2nd Congressional District. Duckworth uses a wheelchair, and Crenshaw wears a patch over his right eye. Both were injured in combat.

They have something that Fetterman doesn’t have: a disability that appeals to voters for two reasons. First, the conditions that disabled them are viewed as noble. Second, their disability is not viewed as something that affects their ability to do their work. Both Duckworth and Crenshaw are likely to win their 2022 general election races.

While the rates of candidates with a disability who run and end up winning elections are still incredibly low, certain candidates with physical disabilities, viewed as “supercrips,” are those who achieved despite their disability. And disabled people in this category are often viewed as more desirable leaders because of all they have achieved, despite their impairments.

Research conducted by political scientist Stefanie Reher in Glasgow, Scotland, shows that candidates with visual, hearing, or mobility impairment-related disabilities often appeal to voters more than nondisabled candidates. These candidates also tend to be viewed as more socially liberal.

However, research about the negative perceptions of candidates with a mental health disability, people with certain forms of disability in general, as well as data on the experiences of disabled politicians show that certain kinds of disability are viewed as less desirable — and the hardships disabled candidates experience often go unnoticed by the public.

I fit into the “supercrip” category — as someone who has earned a doctorate and won a Paralympic medal in the Rio 2016 games in the sport of goalball. Some might think this happened in spite of my disability, but I believe it happened because of it.

While my visual impairment is, of course, different from Fetterman’s cognitive impairment, I want you, the reader, to think more deeply about what disability means to you.

When you see someone who is disabled, do you think that they are less capable in all spheres of life? Does a piece of adaptive technology that helps me do my job more effectively and quickly — like zoomed text, or electronic formats for anything I read — make me less worthy of being hired, or of leading in my career?

» READ MORE: Fetterman deserves more than just closed captioning

Extend these questions to Fetterman. Does his need for voice-to-text captioning make him unqualified to serve in the Senate?

This is not a call for pity or even empathy. It is a reminder that at the end of the day, the reason this election has turned into a referendum on Fetterman’s health — and his disability — is because we as a society are not ready to embrace the full inclusion of the disabled. And it seems to me that we’re not ready for this kind of disabled leader.

Andrew B. Jenks lives in Philadelphia. He is a legally blind scholar-teacher-advocate who holds a doctorate in political science from the University of Delaware. He regularly contributes to awareness-raising and sports day events for children and adults with disabilities and has represented Team USA in the Paralympic sport of goalball for more than a decade. ajenks@udel.edu @thelifeofjenks