Examining the Opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: “Nothing More than Bad Quality Hogwash”

IF 0.4 4区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Policy History Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1017/S0898030622000185
Ian Milden
{"title":"Examining the Opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: “Nothing More than Bad Quality Hogwash”","authors":"Ian Milden","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the divide within the Republican Party between business interests and conservative evangelicals during the debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Business interests were able to build compromises by raising their concerns over practical matters such as costs. Conservative evangelicals advocated for changes due to their moral and ideological positions on homosexuality and HIV. Conservative evangelicals did not receive their desired changes because they constructed their concerns with public safety themes. This led to conservative evangelicals and their opponents talking past each other instead of addressing their concerns. The dynamics shown from the opposition of conservative evangelicals in the ADA debate demonstrate that their influence in elections did not lead to dominance within the Republican Party in shaping policy.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"505 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the divide within the Republican Party between business interests and conservative evangelicals during the debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Business interests were able to build compromises by raising their concerns over practical matters such as costs. Conservative evangelicals advocated for changes due to their moral and ideological positions on homosexuality and HIV. Conservative evangelicals did not receive their desired changes because they constructed their concerns with public safety themes. This led to conservative evangelicals and their opponents talking past each other instead of addressing their concerns. The dynamics shown from the opposition of conservative evangelicals in the ADA debate demonstrate that their influence in elections did not lead to dominance within the Republican Party in shaping policy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审视对1990年《美国残疾人法案》的反对:“没有什么比劣质猪粪更糟糕的了”
摘要本文考察了在1990年《美国残疾人法案》(ADA)的辩论中,共和党内部商业利益与保守福音派之间的分歧。商业利益集团能够通过提出对成本等实际问题的担忧来达成妥协。由于保守的福音派在同性恋和艾滋病问题上的道德和意识形态立场,他们主张改变。保守的福音派没有得到他们想要的改变,因为他们把他们的关注点构建在公共安全主题上。这导致保守的福音派教徒和他们的反对者们各执一词,而不是解决他们所关心的问题。保守派福音派在《美国残疾人法》辩论中的反对态势表明,他们在选举中的影响力并没有导致共和党内部在制定政策方面占据主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
A New Deal for Wine The Most Iniquitous Lobby: The Committee for Constitutional Government and the Shaping of American Politics, 1937–1955 “Granting” Justice, Debating Delinquency: The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act and the UNC Training Center on Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1961–1967 Identity Politics within Kentucky’s Civil Service and the Growth of the Bureaucratic State Mobilizing for the Mind: Veteran Activism and the National Mental Health Act of 1946
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1