I was born with a hearing loss. I’ve struggled with mental illness my entire life. And since a spinal-cord injury four years ago, I’ve walked with a cane and brace. I’m proud to identify as disabled. That’s why I’m concerned by the increasing dependence on references to disability as a political strategy, some of which have come from Donald Trump while others are aimed at him. Regardless of the source, ableist rhetoric that conflates disability with an inability to contribute meaningfully to society is toxic.

As a candidate for president, Trump’s preoccupation with the body was evident when he mocked disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski, derided Hillary Clinton’s lack of stamina, and asserted that Heidi Klum is “no longer a 10.” But now it’s liberals who casually bandy about terms like “crazy” to criticize the president and spur calls to remove him from office in a process outlined by the Constitution’s 25th Amendment.

Those efforts have been fueled by Michael Wolff’s explosive book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which cataloged Trump’s troubling mental lapses, such as frequently repeating himself, and concluded that Trump is unfit for office. Similarly, Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, who testified before Congress on the president’s mental instability, edited “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” In this book, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts deem Trump a dangerous threat to national security despite having never examined him personally.

advertisement

Pundits have also capitalized on these findings, convinced that impugning Trump’s mental fitness is an effective political strategy. The New Yorker’s David Remnick and radio talk show host Bill Press both warn of Trump’s “unfit” state. New York magazine’s Eric Levitz concedes Trump’s mental illness to conclude that you “don’t need a degree in psychiatry to call” Republicans’ willingness to keep him around “crazy.” And they are just the tip of the iceberg.

There are two major problems with these arguments.

First, many individuals whose “mental fitness” could have been questioned turned out to be great leaders, as Tufts psychiatrist Dr. Nassir Ghaemi points out in “A First-Rate Madness.” In a series of case studies that range from Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill to Ted Turner, Ghaemi suggests that mental illness can prove to be an advantage, especially in times of crisis.

Second, many commentators’ reliance on terms like “fitness” evokes a time when eugenics — a now-discredited movement aimed at improving the population’s genetic quality — was all the rage and led officials to curb the number of so-called unfit people by force. In 1911, Woodrow Wilson, who was then New Jersey’s governor, signed into law a policy to sterilize “mentally defective” individuals. In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes similarly declared in Buck v. Bell that “it is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” More than 60,000 Americans were sterilized as a result of the eugenics movement.

Now we are seeing another wave of experts who haven’t thought through the devastating effects on disabled individuals of establishing an ideal standard of “fitness” for a particular position.

Make no mistake. I am not arguing that efforts to determine the president’s mental state are inherently problematic. What troubles me is weaponizing the rhetoric of disability to remove Trump from office, especially since his behavior has not significantly changed from before he was elected.

Newsletters

Sign up for our First Opinion newsletter

Please enter a valid email address.

This strategy has a pernicious side effect: undermining the effectiveness of disabled leaders in politics, business, medicine, and many other fields. Many of the calls for Trump’s removal from office on claims he is mentally unfit lack any discussion of the asset that disability can be. Instead, it’s branded as a disqualifying trait that renders individuals incomplete, unacceptably broken, and unable to manage professional duties. This mentality contributes in turn to the ideology of ability which, as scholar Tobin Siebers put it, “simultaneously banishes disability and turns it into a principle of exclusion.”

Anyone who is disabled knows that these efforts are nothing new. They’re merely the latest additions to a long narrative of able-bodied individuals refusing to believe that those who think or act or hear or see or walk — you get the idea — differently from them cannot possibly be effective in a given capacity, much less possibly more effective, than able-bodied coevals. Disability historian Kim E. Nielsen’s “A Disability History of the United States” is chock-full of such stories.

In a similar vein, memoirists such as Stephen Kuusisto and Christina Crosby have explored the epistemological advantages that disability can confer. After my spinal cord injury, I too wrote about what I learned from this physical metamorphosis. Disability instilled lessons about the fragility of the human condition, the importance of asking for and accepting help from people in your life, and the realization that we’re all needy, in some way. Disability enables me, as it has done for many others, to see the world from a different angle.

It’s time, then, for critics who want to slam Trump for his comments on Clinton, Klum, and Kovaleski — or those who object to his calling Joe Scarborough “crazy” or Kim Jong-un “short and fat” — to stop stooping to his level and instead focus on the negative consequences of his behavior and policies. Instead of calling the president’s statement about the size of his nuclear button “insane,” argue that by inflaming tensions it could eventually lead to a nuclear event. Rather than deriding his fake news awards ceremony as “crazy,” discuss the chilling effect it exacts on First Amendment protections.

This realignment in thinking is essential. Resorting to the terminology of physical or mental difference allows divisive leaders to maintain discursive dominance because they’re willing to go the furthest to insult or debase their opponents. If we couch the debate in corporeal terms rather than focusing on substantive arguments, they’ll win because we’ve abandoned the high ground for their own territory. What’s more, most everyone has some “defect” that can be exploited by these individuals. After all, disability is a particularly fluid identity category.

Perhaps it now seems OK to resort to such tactics. Maybe they appear to offer a last chance to undermine the man who’s gutted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and supported Roy Moore. But tomorrow it could be a candidate with reduced mobility who some fear can’t take the physical toll of the presidency. It could be a deaf individual who critics might claim would cost taxpayers money by requiring interpreters.

There will always be reasons, some shiny with the veneer of legitimacy, to discriminate against disabled individuals. We must be especially vigilant in challenging this tendency so disabled people can engage in society as fully as their able-bodied contemporaries. Our world will be better for it. But this process depends on a shift away from language that explicitly casts aspersions on the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and towards rhetoric that acknowledges the value of their hard-earned perspectives.

I write this not to prolong Donald Trump’s tenure but because I fear what will happen to the disabled politicians of the future whose political enemies cash in on their physiological differences.

When that happens, I’ll try to refrain from saying, “I warned you.”

Pasquale Toscano is a Rhodes Scholar studying early-modern English at the University of Oxford.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Why do you “struggle” with so-called “mental illness”? Don’t you know that so-called “mental illnesses” are exactly as “real” as presents from Santa Claus, but not more real? That the DSM-5 is nothing more than a catalog of billing codes? That psychiatry is nothing more than a pseudoscience, a drug racket, and a means of social control? DACA was UN-Constitutionally enacted by Obama, but hey, let’s just ignore that little detail, ok? And BTW, Trump wasn’t mocking Kovaleski’s “disability”, he was mocking the lame-ass lawsuit. Clearly, you suffer TDD – Trump Derangement Disorder. You hate Trump so much that you can’t think straight. Hate is like drinking poison to kill your enemy. But hey, maybe the above article is just your MENTAL ILLNESS talking! Hey, kiddo, you brought up the subject! RSVP? Hah!….
    (c)2017, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

  • Mr. Toscano
    Your disabilities are certainly not evident in your ability to articulate the truth. I work with people diagnosed with major mental illness in a forensic setting, and only recently, have our staff been introduced to the concept of “recovery” and how to reframe our language, as words have the power to harm or help. Thank you for your perspective on the way many folks throw around terms without consideration of potential provocation related to stigma already painfully endured by far too many of us.
    Perhaps we could say about this president, instead of “crazy”, there is evidence of ignorance, self-centeredness, behaviorally and dangerous impulsivity coupled with an inability to acknowledge the damage he is creating for our country and the planet. This, to me, is why he is unprepared and therefore unfit for the Office he currently holds.

    • Your comment proves that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, a drug racket, and a means of social control. It’s 21st Century Phrenology, with potent neuro-toxins. The DSM-5 is nothing more than a catalog of billing codes. Psychiatry has done, and continues to do, far more harm than good. Besides, since *WHEN* has “forensic psychiatry” been about anything else besides PUNISHMENT?

    • Bill, succinctly & thoughtfully put. I don’t feel Trump’s situation mirrors that of Lincoln & others. While I understand Mr. Toscano’s concerns I don’t feel it truly relevant to Trump. Ppl don’t actually see him as disabled – they take easy way by using buzz words & words & their implications are very powerful. Trump’s not crazy, but “morally” & in many cases, impulsive, uninformed & confused. I don’t believe that most Ppl equate using short hand terms for Trump with stigmatizing genuine mental & physical disabilities & challenges. Yes, the ripple effect of vocabularies used must be considered, but I feel Mr. Toscano’s article does not apply, in sense that future candidates for any jobs will be stigmatized more bec. of words currently used to describe Trump by some. Institutional & legislative reform, or the implementation of them is imperative. Trump is not disabled in the true sense of the word – his egocentrism & behavior are tolerated by too many – but T’s comparisons & predictions are not comparable, equivalent or applicable. The issues are deeper & need to be directly addressed & reforms mandated. Trump’s administration is like a carnival – not a signal that ableists will become more indifferent & cruel. There are many other medias/Ppl contributing to that, historically & currently, be it legislators, bureaucrats, the media in general & specifically, comics & the unheeding, non-mindful masses of people for whom empathy is not considered a cardinal rule. We need much more education @ people w. disabilities in this country, rejecting stereotypes, petitioning policy makers, having programs @ schools & work places, not inflating media outcries @ Trump’s mental states as inciting deeper prejudices — he can do so much more damage as the POTUS, including cutting back on Medicaid, specialized services, disability payments & rights, outreach & education programs, funding more clinics, etc….

  • Correct, Laura. It is his behavior & (lack of) character that calls into question his capabilities for the job of President…
    He seems to be getting an “F” so far… with no hope of improvement, given his past life!!

  • Character is in question here. Perhaps it is time to stop medicalizing character. And also time to start testing for organic root causes and triggers of neurotransmitter changes and brain pathology. I’d start with heavy metals, mold, Lyme, dental infections, and immune reactions to dental materials and medical devices, in addition to the standard troika of diet, drugs and lifestyle.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy