The Outside Advantage

The highest-ranking government officials in the United States seem to believe they can no longer effectively rule against the special-interest. The executive branch is continuing to provide more rights to these groups at the expense of the majority of citizens.

The voters in the U.S.are often taking the liberty of claiming that policies they encourage are considering the majority of the citizens. The policies can't be that broad that at this point. Instead, the elite is being catered to at the expense of others. There are people who want change but if the position of the inside advantage isn't used for challenging boundaries the advantage is instead on the side of those  who would make the boundaries even more unreasonable and strict.

Autism advocacy is a reflection of the compromising trend because mainstream advocates are so harshly criticized for encouraging any ideas that contradict the industry-driven medical model.

The main excuse I've always heard (in all types of political compromise) is that change can only occur once you get involved where the changes get made. Individual ideas too often are seen as a threat rather than an aid to what this group calls advocacy.

The people who set up the form of government in the U.S. that we are supposedly still following didn't believe that such compromise was necessary. They warned against the type of compromise that government officials and all types of mainstream advocates are making today. The liberties which are being lost at the expense of catering to the mainstream and the compromises which are often harshly demanded are not something we can continue to afford.

The way autism is mainly being described in the media practically never deviates from the medical model which is overwhelmingly influenced by the industry rather than by the continual observation of the people the industry labels. For people to describe an alternative way to see the people who are labeled in this way is highly offensive to medical practitioners as well as the mainstream society that has adopted their views.

All disability advocacy continues to be radical but the confines of this radical approach is increasingly narrowing the options provided. Advocacy from anyone who's thought pattern is discriminated against in any way (which can accompany physical barriers) has traditionally been devalued in the worst way. This means that as autistics are being more recognized we have the least voice in matters that concern us.

We are described as un-empathetic so that we can be categorized and not be seen as having an understanding of another clinically defined subset of autistics. Of course course this also provides justification for bullies looking for vulnerable targets. Our lack of understanding of how the more-catered-to-population in society communicates is described as nothing more than social deficit disorder that prevents us from understanding and or accepting reality.

I recently saw where someone had claimed that Jenny McCarthy was fighting against the media hype. I was astounded that such an expression could be made, which described the hype about autism as the opposition rather than the agreement of Jenny McCarthy view. This is how identity politics is used to isolate and polarize discussions so that the industry's views are protected.

Radical advocacy is not safe. It never was. However, extreme measures are now being taken so that fewer people who are vulnerable to the mainstream demands by special interest can be effectively challenging those demands without being harshly criticized and even penalized using  unjust laws. There is a high price to pay for the complacency which comes from what is described as the necessary political compromise (the inside advantage). Criticism of injustice must challenge the boundaries (both real and imagined) in order for the needed changes to occur.