# Reagan's AIDS position **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 4, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265 "2003-11-04T02:38:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/1 "2003-11-04T02:38:01Z")
So the made-for-TV movie about Reagan seems to have unfairly put words in Reagan’s mouth about AIDS delivering to sinners what they deserved. I’m trying to find what Reagan’s real position was. He pretty clearly had no real policy, and was pretty quiet about AIDS, but are there good sources for what his position was? I’ve found stuff so far that’s incredibly biased - beyond believability - on both sides. What did Reagan really say about AIDS? ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/2 "2003-11-04T03:20:40Z")
There’s certainly some opinion out there: [How Ronald Reagan Caused the AIDS Epidemic](http://www.fumento.com/heterodoxy.htm) [Is it a good thing that AIDS hit the gay community first?](http://www.duke.edu/~mht/Papers/AIDS%20&%20homosexuality.html) [Waxman warns against AIDS overreaction](http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/health/issues_health_HIV_news_Waxman_overreaction_10_12_85.htm) AIDS research is big business now, as it should be. At the time Ronnie ran and won, we’d never heard of it. Nobody’s without an agenda, Here’s another read: [Encyclopedia of AIDS](http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/congress.html) AIDS research was funded rather rapidly for an entirely new thing, and Reagan’s Republican successors, Bush Sr. and Dub, have embraced tackling the disease. ---
**Author:** ![freakamouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@freakamouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/freakamouse)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/3 "2003-11-04T03:27:06Z")
The good: Reagan managed to appoint someone to the Surgeon General’s position who was unable to give up his professional and moral obligations and actually dealt with the problem of AIDS. The bad: Reagan didn’t. He ignored it as long as possible. Many conservatives still have backwards opinions on the disease. Many more people have allowed themselves to become complacent due in large part to this. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/4 "2003-11-04T12:37:59Z")
From [Dutch](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375756450/qid=1067948350/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6890273-6124905?v=glance&n=507846), the authorized biography of Reagan: On homosexuality pg 415: > [@](#): > > When he expresses views simply and declaratively, they should nevertheless be taken seriously, because they represent core philosophy. God wrote the Bible, and the Bible condones capital punishment. “Sodomy” is a sin. However, homosexuals have a constitutional right to teach in public schools. AIDS pg 458: > [@](#): > > Reagan (we may as well follow through with his own education in the matter) would remain unconcerned by AIDS at least until the death of Rock Hudson in 1985, which shocked him into asking one of his doctors a few shyly clumsy questions: “It’s a virus, like measles? But, it doesn’t go away?” My research cards have him finding it a fit subject for humor as late as December 1986, and five months after that waxing biblical in his opinion that “maybe the Lord brought down this plague” because “illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.” Make of that what you will… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/5 "2003-11-04T13:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Q. Mr. President, the Nation’s best-known AIDS scientist says the time has come now to boost existing research into what he called a minor moonshot program to attack this AIDS epidemic that has struck fear into the Nation’s health workers and even its schoolchildren. Would you support a massive government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer? > > The President. I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It’s been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I’m sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it’ll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there’s no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer. [Press conference; Sept. 1985](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/91785c.htm) > [@](#): > > These are just a few of our plans, but I want to mention one more. One of our highest public health priorities is going to continue to be finding a cure for AIDS. We’re going to continue to try to develop and test vaccines, and we’re going to focus also on prevention. In this regard, I’m asking the Surgeon General to prepare a major report to the American people on AIDS. [Remarks to HHS; Feb 1986](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/20586f.htm) > [@](#): > > We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS. [Agenda for the Future; 1986](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/20686c.htm) The public papers available at the [Ronald Reagan Presidential Library](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/_vti_script/speeches_rrpubpap.asp0.idq) site contain no mention of AIDS prior to 1986. I guess that’s what all those “Silence = Death” T-Shirts were all about. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/6 "2003-11-04T14:11:07Z")
Reagan’s AIDS position? Well, HE liked it, but Nancy found it rather hard on the elbows… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/7 "2003-11-04T14:41:29Z")
As the cited materials indicate, Reagan seems to have been conflicted on AIDS – his actions post 1986 are laudible, but his prior silence (and personal feelings all along) may have been a reflection of some anti-gay prejudice (which was more common at the time). Not to hijack this into a GD, but I personally think the RNC is overreacting at the suggestion that Reagan would have expressed a sentiment such as “they that live in sin will die in sin”: I do indeed remember arguing with quite a few conservatives who held that AIDS was a plague from God. It was not nearly as odious a position as it would be today. Public opinion changes, and leaders (liberal and conservative alike) are influenced by these changes. It doesn’t diminish public figures to tell the whole truth about them, in perspective. (E.g., Abraham Lincoln held some views on race that would put him _way_ outside any mainstream political party today). Apologies for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/8 "2003-11-04T17:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by F. U. Shakespeare \* > **…conservatives who held that AIDS was a plague from God. It was not nearly as odious a position as it would be today…** Uh? It was always hateful, bigotted and backward, and perfectly odious. What’s changed? We’re only talking 20 years ago, how could anyone in the late 20th century speak of God’s revenge with a straight face but no matching jacket? ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/9 "2003-11-04T17:31:10Z")
I didn’t state that very clearly. Such a statement would have been odious then, and would be odious now. Absolutely. As I said, I was often challenged by conservatives when I took issue with such statements a few years ago. What was different was _how many people_ thought it was odious then, compared to now. (There has been some progress). And, by extension, how likely a conservative President from that era would have been likely to agree with that particular odious statement, on which a substantial part of the RNC’s outrage is based. And I would assert that a lot can change in twenty years on such matters. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed \* > \*\*Uh? It was always hateful, bigotted and backward, and perfectly odious. What’s changed? We’re only talking 20 years ago, how could anyone in the late 20th century speak of God’s revenge with a straight face but no matching jacket? \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/10 "2003-11-04T21:06:54Z")
You need to keep in mind that much less was known about AIDS and HIV infection then. The first publicly known cases occurred in America in March 1981. The virus causing it was not clearly identified until March 1985. It wasn’t even clear that HIV infection always led to AIDS. And AIDS wasn’t ‘marketed’ then as it is now. Back in the early 80s, the disease was confined largely to gay men and IV drug abusers. This is far from wishing death on either group, but the idea that AIDS is a threat to most heterosexuals is not pushed as hard as it is now. Therefore, it didn’t appear on most people’s radar. And therefore, Reagan left this public health issue in the hands of his Surgeon General. Who publicized the facts almost as soon as they were known. [Cite for the early history of AIDS in the US.](http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/11 "2003-11-04T22:38:34Z")
**F. U. Shakespeare** , **Shodan** , Um. Yes a lot can change in 20 years, and yes, AIDS was “marketed” differently then, but as someone in the _then_ target “market” (I’m 41, which made me the prime target of the after-the-horse-has-bolted, scaremongering, propagandandised “marketing” of AIDS):[ul][li]nothing seems to have changed significantly in these two decades – certainly not for the betterI don’t doubt that initial signs were that this disease was statistically more prevalent in the gay community (and/or other “risk groups”), but it was never anything other than bigotted horseshit to attribute AIDS to the “wrath of God”[/ul][/li] Apologies for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/12 "2003-11-05T00:42:45Z")
Thanks - lots of good, well-cited answers here. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/13 "2003-11-06T01:38:50Z")
**The Great Unwashed** , I would respectfully disagree that _public attitudes_ have not changed substantially in the last twenty years. I have many conservative friends, and I can’t remember the last time I had to take issue with any of them about the ridiculous “plague from God” argument. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/14 "2003-11-06T02:11:43Z")
Well, that’s exactly why I asked. I was here 20 years ago, but I wanted a reality check against my memory. Our memories do distort things after twenty years, and as public perception does change, we forget how things were before. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/15 "2003-11-08T00:44:24Z")
But, isn’t Dutch an **authorized** biography of Reagan? IOW, wouldn’t someone representing Reagan’s interests have vetted the manuscript before publication? Besides, the use of this bizzare literary device might be unconventional and controversial but the parts I quoted are descriptive and a direct quote, not a part of the invented narrative. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/16 "2003-11-08T01:59:10Z")
**bup** , assuming (as I am) that the Morris note is credible… Consider how much progress we’ve made – the GOP recently threw its full weight into electing an admitted, unrepentant serial indulger in ‘illicit sex’ (albeit with girls, as defined by the Ten Commandments) to follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps as California governor. And that Arnold was _very_ likely indulging in this ‘illicit sex’ when Governor Reagan was elected President in 1980. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reagans-aids-position/211265/17 "2003-11-08T02:04:15Z")
WTF? Where’s the post to which I replied? The one that was immediately after **bup** ’s 11-05 post.