Blindness in Current Political Discourse: Stemming a Toxic Tide
by Chris Danielsen
Because we encourage the use of the word “blind” and discourage euphemisms for it, it is easy for many longtime Federationists to forget why people might want to avoid it. But the National Federation of the Blind and its leaders have always understood that part of the reason is that the way the word “blind” is used often points to negative characteristics that have nothing to do with lack of eyesight, and the associations created by these characteristics increase the stigma attached to blindness. Indeed, part of our determination to reclaim and redefine the word “blind” is intended as a deliberate counterpoint to these many harmful usages.
One needs only to consult any dictionary, even today, to find that the so-called “b word” is synonymous with willful ignorance, among other things. For example, the WordNet® entry for the adjective “blind” provides three senses for it. The first is “unsighted,” but the other two are “unable or unwilling to perceive or understand” and “unreasoning.” (An interesting and encouraging side note: Even though WordNet includes definitions we abhor, its example sentence using blind in the sense of unsighted is an attributed quote from Kenneth Jernigan that readers will recognize: “a person is blind to the extent that he must devise alternative techniques to do efficiently those things he would do with sight if he had normal vision.”) We have always rejected the framing of blindness as anything other than a physical characteristic, and yet this framing continues to permeate public discourse, even among people who claim to be our allies.
This is to be expected, if not accepted, given the toxic nature of today’s political climate. But it does not follow that we as blind Americans should stand for the characteristic of blindness being used to define or demean us; after all, the belief that blindness does not in fact define us is core to who we are and what we believe.
This is why some recent examples of political speech, from different points on the political spectrum, are troubling. On Wednesday, February 12, 2025, Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, a Federation member who works for the Project on Government Oversight, testified before a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency. Dylan had been invited by the subcommittee’s Democratic members to testify about the actions of the Trump Administration’s new DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) Service. Because his testimony was solicited by the party out of power and perceived as critical of DOGE and the administration, he became a target of their defenders. According to the Washington Post, DOGE’s director, Elon Musk, “retweeted a post on X noting that the ‘blind director of watchdog group funded by George Soros testifies that he does not see widespread evidence of government waste’ and added two laughing/crying emojis. The tweet garnered more than 21 million views, and sparked dozens of hateful messages to Hedtler-Gaudette’s account.” (George Soros is a philanthropist who contributes to many organizations and causes that are associated with the political left.) The tweet was clearly meant to undermine Dylan’s credibility because of his supposed incapacity and perhaps to imply that he was “unable or unwilling to perceive or understand” that widespread government waste exists. In response, the National Federation of the Blind issued the following statement:
Baltimore, Maryland (February 15, 2025): The National Federation of the Blind strongly condemns the inappropriate and harmful stereotyping of blind people that has been highlighted in the response to a recent Congressional hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency. The online mockery and skepticism directed at a blind witness reflect a broader aggressive and deeply troubling pattern in today’s political discourse—one that wrongly assumes blind people, and people with disabilities more generally, lack the capacity to participate fully in public life, including in complex and technical fields. We specifically condemn all media outlets that are actively perpetuating these horrible misconceptions and are falsely validating low expectations that harm our society.
Amplifying misunderstanding about blind people is never appropriate and should never be exploited as comic relief. The idea that blindness equates to incompetence is not only false but profoundly damaging. Blind people serve as scientists, lawyers, educators, engineers, and business owners. We navigate and contribute to society with skill, knowledge, and independence, often despite systemic barriers and outdated misconceptions about our abilities. The public ridicule and dismissive attitudes being used to reject a blind expert witness in last week’s hearing perpetuate the very discrimination that blind Americans continue to fight against in employment, education, and civic participation.
The use of disability as a political tool—whether through outright mockery, insinuations of unfitness, or performative outrage—dehumanizes people with disabilities and reinforces harmful stereotypes. It will not be tolerated by blind people, who vote and pay taxes, and it should be rejected by all Americans. We call on all elected leaders, policymakers, and media outlets to engage in informed, respectful discourse that recognizes the capabilities of blind individuals rather than exploiting ignorance for political gain.
The National Federation of the Blind remains committed to challenging these misconceptions and advocating for a society where blindness is understood not as a limitation, but as a characteristic that does not define one’s ability to contribute meaningfully. We are prepared to work closely with elected officials and media professionals to provide accurate and meaningful information about the true lived experience of blind Americans.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a vocal independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats and who has run for president, apparently didn’t see our statement. As he began barnstorming the country to call attention to what he claims is a takeover of our government by an oligarchy of billionaires, he repeatedly said words to the effect that people have to be blind not to see what is happening. Federation President Mark Riccobono sent him the following letter:
Dear Senator Sanders:
On behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, I strongly encourage you to stop using being "blind" as a metaphor in your political statements as has been highlighted frequently in media reports related to your Fighting Oligarchy Tour. While we share your concerns about the fundamental dismantling of key programs and protections for people with disabilities, your statement that people must be "blind" if they cannot see what is going on contributes to the harmful notion that blindness is linked to incapacity. We urge you to stop using our community to make your point.
This is not a new concern for us as politicians have used blindness as a means to highlight problems for decades. However, it is at the forefront of consciousness because of the current concern for the future of disability rights but also because of the attack against an expert who testified in Congress who happened to be blind. On February 15, 2025, we released a Statement on the Harmful Stereotyping of Blind People in Political Discourse. That statement said in part, "The online mockery and skepticism directed at a blind witness reflect a broader aggressive and deeply troubling pattern in today’s political discourse—one that wrongly assumes blind people, and people with disabilities more generally, lack the capacity to participate fully in public life, including in complex and technical fields." We are calling on you to recognize our concern and to actively work to not use disability references to make your point.
We appreciate your work to push back on efforts to diminish programs and protections for people with disabilities. We hope that you will match that commitment with one that supports the positive framing of blind people and others with disabilities in society. We would be pleased to be a resource to you on this or any other topic related to the full participation of the blind in our nation.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Riccobono, President
National Federation of the Blind
We protest some harmful usages of the word “blind” and stereotypes of blind people because they stymie our efforts to integrate with the wider society, but also because they filter into blind people’s perceptions of themselves. Terry Sutherland, a blind man in Indiana, wanted to demonstrate his belief that his state needs more restrictions on permits to carry concealed firearms. To do that, he went to his local sheriff’s office to apply for such a permit, which he was able to acquire with no trouble. He uses a white cane, so his blindness was not in question. His argument to the media outlets that eagerly picked up the story was that if Indiana is giving such permits to blind people, its gun laws and policies are clearly nonsensical. A popular syndicated radio program called The Breakfast Club praised Mr. Sutherland for his common sense, while at the same time demonstrating its hosts’ ignorance about how blind people live our lives. They wondered how Mr. Sutherland would read a letter containing his permit or declining to issue one, or even be aware that he had received it in the first place, and were mystified as to how he might write a letter of his own. Many Federationists will remember that this same program questioned the ability of a blind teenager to take babysitting jobs a few years ago, calling into question the capacity of blind people to be parents by implication.
The tragedy of the situation is not that Mr. Sutherland got a permit to carry a weapon, but that he expected that he would or should be denied one based on blindness alone. He has absorbed the low expectations of blind people that are held by much of society, at least in certain respects. It is highly doubtful that he has ever met a blind person like Jim Marks, president of our Montana affiliate and member of the national board of directors, who owns roughly ten firearms, uses them when he goes hunting, and has taught hunting safety. It also stands to reason that the hosts of The Breakfast Club have never met such a person either, which is why we featured Jim in a video responding to their segment on the topic, along with other blind people reading their mail and using their computers. You can view it on our YouTube channel. Whatever one believes about firearms policy, it is encouraging that Mr. Sutherland was treated no differently than any other Indiana citizen seeking a permit. Laws should be applied equally, without respect to blindness, whether they restrict gun rights or grant them more freely.
Why should all of this matter to us? Don’t we, as individuals and as a movement, have bigger things to worry about? Perhaps, but one of those things at the present moment is whether and to what extent the policies and programs that allow us to live the lives we want remain in full effect and whether our rights are rigorously enforced. We cannot and will not give politicians of any party or ideology or anyone else seeking to score political points permission to belittle us and refuse to take our expertise and lived experience seriously. We can never afford to do so, but certainly not when our value as citizens and human beings is being openly questioned. If we are not respected, we will not be heard when we speak about our lives and the effects that shortsighted funding decisions or bad public policy have on us. We should not lash out, but neither should we tolerate disrespect, even or perhaps especially when it is dressed up as humor. Those who say that we must “lighten up” should perhaps instead consider more thoroughly what is at stake.
To be sure, we can tailor our reactions to the magnitude and style of the provocation. Our video in response to the segment on The Breakfast Club strikes a humorous tone, in recognition of the fact that the hosts were trying to be funny and might respond better to a light touch than a heavy-handed one. Because their boundary-pushing format relies in part on drawing reactions that they would perhaps turn into new occasions for mocking or attacking us, a low-key approach seemed like the best option. Public officials, on the other hand, are operating in a realm where what they say is taken very seriously by their followers and the media, and our responses should reflect that. Either way, however, staying silent in the face of harmful discourse—whether it stems from misunderstanding, misguided good intentions, or mockery—is not who we are or what we do.
It is also true that we need not protest every usage of the word “blind.” I do not object to the window hangings in my apartment being referred to as “blinds,” as their purpose is to occlude the light coming into my living space. When we talk of “blind justice,” the characteristic is intended as a positive trait of our judicial system meant to suggest that justice does not focus on superficial characteristics of individuals, such as wealth or race, but rather the lawfulness of their actions or inactions.
Ultimately, whether or how we proceed in the face of perceived provocation is always a topic for intelligent and informed discussion within our movement, and so I invite continuation of that discussion. Have we struck the right notes in our recent statements or in our response to The Breakfast Club? How should our approach be altered or improved? I look forward to hearing from the engaged, thoughtful, and well-informed readership of the Braille Monitor so that everyone in our community can consider all angles and nuances of this continuing and crucial conversation.