Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> II.
>
> [Picking up on ADAPT]
>
>
> I can't exactly disagree with this, because it is true that several
> local groups here were shamelessly sucking up to Republicans in the
> Executive branch and Congress during the 80s and their lobbyist was
> trading back and forth with the conservative minions of power, including the
> neo-conservative disability groups whom Bush later applauded (ignoring
> the more radical Berkeley malcontents), and they (local groups) knew
> even at the time, at any point the whole game could be turned on
> them. But the argument was, these are the jerks in power and we either
> work with them, or get nothing done. It's hard to argue against
> realpolitik, especially when the possibility of concrete political
> gains are at stake.
But it is worse. Evan Kemp, founder of Invacare was a principle funder of ADAPT and he was a Republican...I believe that Mike Auberger who is the head of ADAPT and one of its co-founders also is Republican. There were strong ties between Kemp, and other disabled Republicans and the Bush Sr. administration - one reason the ADA got passed. As you know, I refer to the ADA as a "free market civil rights bill" because it puts property interests of business owners above any right to a reasonalbe accommodation on the job or access period. The 'right" is dependent upon the employer's calculous. The neoliberal government took next to no responsiblity for enforcing this law.
> ADAPT might have never come up with a coherent program and attending
> theory on how to overthrow the great capitalist pig hegemon, but that
> doesn't mean that a lot of people involved didn't have one or two
> of these plans up their shelves. ADAPT was a protest and issue
> centered organization, not a political party---and its main interest
> was getting accessible public transportation. And later, there were
> internal splits that fractured along predictable lines between those
> motivated to protesting for a specific change (East Bay Transit
> Terminal strike), and those who were into just having a good time
> doing guerilla street theater.
>
I think Ravi is referring to ADAPT national in Colorado, not to a specific chapter. As you know they varied GREATLY.
> Ravi Malhotra will just have to trust me on this one, but there were
> very few people here in the Berkeley movements who were ``...lacking
> theoretical clarity and leadership, [or who] at times limited their
> own potential as a social movement....'' It was and always has been a
> question of achieving practical goals---getting it done now, and
> leaving the big questions and next moves for the kitchen table and
> drinks later on.
True. But in the context of the broader political arena, Ravi is
simply pointing out the overall lack of an anti-capitalist analysis.
I don't think he is speaking about Berkeley specifically. How
representative of the country is Berkeley on any level?
>
> But more to the point, yes, putting together mass umbrella movements
> as coalitions between all these issues and groups and then linking
> them up with international organizations is definitely a problem in
> tactical accomplishment. I say a tactical question, because it is and
> always has been on the table and discussed endlessly for thirty
> years---certainly by the political gliterati who jet-set between
> capitals and community based local movements---conducting a sort of
> underworld of shuttle diplomacy.
Isn't Ravi as critical of the socialist movement for having ignored disablity rights? I think he is trying to present the need for a theoretical unity which he senses is missing. It is missing, I agree with him. The Disability rights movement has primarly relied on liberalism to enact reform and it has gotten some Republicans to go along because they have seen an opening to get disabled people off welfare and disability benefits. They can be seen as "doing something for the handicapped," even when it is a civil rights bill (which in the past decade has been torn apart by the conservative courts. Well, it was written in such a way that they could do that). Self-determination, independence vs. dependency, the power of the individual to overcome and succeed in the "free market" and all that "freedom" is right up with Republican ideology. Disability politics have definitly gone down the middle road -- both the neoliberals and the Third Way of Bill Clinton/ Blair have prevailed and so far failed the disability movement, IMHO. Not that we haven't made some gains.
> CIL might have called itself a center for independent living and
> pushed the rhetoric of the so-called independent living movement, but
> what the organization really amounted was a over sized coordinating
> committee or collective run as a community project to push all kinds
> of support services:
snip
Ed Roberts once said that his biggest mistake was calling it the independent living movement instead of the *interdependent living* movement. So Ed, one of the major players, was certainly aware of naming this movement.
chuck as always, I greatly enjoy your posts. A book needs to be written about Berkeley movement. I wonder if the Zames book does that? Her new book is called "The Disability Rights Movement." Do you know?
best, Marta