>When the ADA was passed the Disability Rights Defense Fund and
>several other groups organized to try to see that challenges to the
>Act were precedent setting in a way that progressed disabled people's
>civil rights. The Supreme Court has done much to destroy the
>potential of the ADA. I'm not going into that history here only to
>say that a social movement often culminates in changing law, then
>must rely on the other institutions to follow through with it. In
>the US that is usually the courts.
>
>Marta
After I sent that .... I guess I was interpreting NN's as a claim that all anyone involved in social change cares about is the judicial arena. As I said to someone offlist, that's not how it works -- it's always a well-rounded strategy. Offlist, someone else told me that we need to work on the legislative arena. Yeahbutt. We already _are_. Any social movement tends to engage in multiple strategies: agitation, education, protests, legislative campaigns, lobbying, grass roots support, the list goes on.
I think the differences sometimes have to do with wanting to see immediate relief for people wherever we can get it. I think of all the people who lived in the old 'hood who were disabled and who benefited from the meager disability support. Because that complex was built with federal HUD monies, they had to build to code, they had to support a percentage of disabled, they had to accept the lower income, they had to fix things when they broke, they had to make sure there was a ramp to the dumpster, they enforced handicap parking violations.
I don't like hearing at Daily Kos that we need to rachet down our demands and accept the erosion of abortion rights, disablity rights, or anything else ... for what? So the democrats can win?
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org