# What Could Ronald Reagan Have Done \[About AIDS\]? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085 "2004-06-07T12:16:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/121 "2004-06-10T04:39:01Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > So again, RR could have and should have increased funding sooner. Not necessarily. Money does not grow on trees, as the cliche says. If you spend a dollar to seek cures for this disease – the nature of which was not yet understood – then that’s one less dollar which will go toward curing cancer or preventing heart disease. It’s easy to say that RR _should_ have increased the funding for AIDS research, but at the time, this was by no means obvious – _especially_ since it was not clear if government efforts should be focused on cure or on prevention. (And lest we forget, AIDS did indeed turn out to be nearly 100% preventable.) ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/122 "2004-06-10T04:59:51Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > (And lest we forget, AIDS did indeed turn out to be nearly 100% preventable.) Well, but to be fair, preventative action would have had to take place in the 70s. Many if not most of the people who died in the 80s (certainly those who died in the early 80s) contracted the disease in the 70s. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/123 "2004-06-10T05:23:29Z")
Yes, but in order to prevent _additional_ deaths, prevention still turned out to be the safest, easiest and most cost-effective option. (I know that many AIDS activists would chafe at the word “cost-effective,” but that’s simple reality. The government can’t just print up money to fund HIV research, and every dollar that’s spent to cure AIDS could cost us the life of a cancer patient.) So the point remains – It was not yet clear whether focusing on prevention or on a cure would have been the best way to prevent future loss of life. Indeed, given the viral nature of HIV and AIDS, pursuing a cure appears to be an effort with little hope of success. For this reason, I am reluctant to accept the insistent claim that Reagan _should_ have allocated more funds for AIDS research. It’s simply wasn’t that clear at the time, and is not even clear in retrospect. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/124 "2004-06-10T07:34:03Z")
By the way, is there an evenhanded book on all this? Perhaps _And the Band Played On_ ? ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/125 "2004-06-10T09:57:51Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not necessarily. Money does not grow on trees, as the cliche says. … Unless you want to fund Star Wars/Missile Defense/[insert defense project of choice] of course, then tens of millions of dollars become miraculously available. Just my £0.02 Don’t have much to say in this debate being as I’m not American but I’m reading with interest. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/126 "2004-06-10T12:29:25Z")
Still, time takes time. Lots of thinking had to happen before progress could have been made against AIDS. An additional billion a couple of years early might well have been wasted if the underlying understanding was not there. (Heck, at one point people thought amals caused AIDS. Lots of false leads to waste time and money.) Of course taking money from Star Wars would have condemned a lot of people I never met to life under Communism. Now that’s the horns of a dilemma, if you could only attack one problem, which would it be? I offer no opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/127 "2004-06-10T13:10:25Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > By the way, is there an evenhanded book on all this? Perhaps _And the Band Played On_ ? I’ve read _And the Band Played On_, but it was many years ago. I found it good, taking aim at both the Left and Right for their responses to the epidemic. YMMV, of course. ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/128 "2004-06-10T14:25:03Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Still, time takes time. Lots of thinking had to happen before progress could have been made against AIDS. An additional billion a couple of years early might well have been wasted if the underlying understanding was not there. > > (Heck, at one point people thought amals caused AIDS. Lots of false leads to waste time and money.) > > Of course taking money from Star Wars would have condemned a lot of people I never met to life under Communism. Now that’s the horns of a dilemma, if you could only attack one problem, which would it be? > > I offer no opinion. If that was addressed to my post then you did indeed offer an opinion: that taking money from Star Wars would have resulted in the Soviet Union lasting longer than it did. I’m not especially interested in getting into that debate, it’s already been discussed in the other Reagan GD thread by more knowledgable posters. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/129 "2004-06-10T14:28:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Good suggestions, all. > > I can just see the scenario: > > Now, for our response, we turn to a representative of the gay community. > Regards, > Shodan No, but he could have said this: "My fellow Americans. There is a health crisis in American right now called AIDS, and there is every indication that, while it is currently found mostly in the gay community and in the community of IV drug users, it could easily cross-over into the general population. There is much that we don’t know about the disease, but one thing we do know - that it kills our fellow citizens and leaves in its wake bereaved families and friends. I have asked my Surgeon General to bring the power of his office and staff to bear on this disease, and prepare a plan for educationing the public on its prevention. In the meantime, I ask that you learn what you can about AIDS, and take steps to protect yourself if you believe you may be at risk. Finally, I ask that you continue to love and support anyone that you know that may contract this terrible disease. Thank you, and God Bless America." Hell, he could have said that without cue cards in about 2 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/130 "2004-06-10T14:43:29Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But the OP makes a good point in asking what Reagan could have done which would have had any positive effect at all. I’m not sure that a mushy speach would have had the desired effect then or now. While this hypothetical speech would have seem mushy and ineffective (or even counter-productive) to you, for the GLBT community, it would have been at least a token gesture that 1) the President acknowledged there was a problem and 2) acknowledged that the GLBT community was part of the electorate and as such, deserving of his compassion and leadership. By not making the speech, it showed that he didn’t care that we are part of the electorate and that he choose political expediency over true leadership. That is why I will not be joining the rest of the country in mourning his passing. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/131 "2004-06-10T15:24:01Z")
From Andrew Sullivan: > [@](#): > > **Larry Speakes, presidential spokesman, on October 15, 1982:** > > Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases? > > MR. SPEAKES: What’s AIDS? > > Q: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it? > > MR. SPEAKES: I don’t have it. Do you? (Laughter.) > > Q: No, I don’t. > > MR. SPEAKES: You didn’t answer my question. > > Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President … > > MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.) > > Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke? > > MR. SPEAKES: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester. > > Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry? > > MR. SPEAKES: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any … > > Q: Nobody knows? > > MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester. > > Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping … > > MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he’s had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is. > > Q: The President doesn’t have gay plague, is that what you’re saying or what? > > MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn’t say that. > > Q: Didn’t say that? > > MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn’t you stay there? (Laughter.) > > Q: Because I love you Larry, that’s why (Laughter.) > > MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don’t put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.) > > Q: Oh, I retract that. > > MR. SPEAKES: I hope so. > > Q: It’s too late. So, I’d say the least Reagan could have done was fire this asshat. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/132 "2004-06-10T16:20:52Z")
That was an excellent C&P. Really shows where were Way Back Then. ---
**Author:** ![esquimalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@esquimalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esquimalt)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/133 "2004-06-10T17:00:11Z")
This is from Andrew Sullivan’s site > [@](#): > > Here’s an email from Bob Roehr, one of the best gay journalists who has long covered HIV: > > To my mind, the important questions concern whether the role that the President plays or doesn’t play has a long-term impact on the course of the epidemic. I think that in most cases it does not. > In the 1980s activists made the case that Presidential leadership, a greater sense of urgency, and the spending of more money could have a dramatic impact on the course of the epidemic. Their arguments were focused on “a cure” for those already infected, with prevention being a decidedly secondary note. From the perspective of time, and with different leadership and the expenditure of vast sums of money, it has become clear, at least to me, that the crucial issues with regard to a cure and an all-important vaccine are scientific ones that still have not been resolved despite applying all of that time, effort, and resources to them. I have little reason to believe that a different course of action by Reagan would have significantly altered the scientific state of knowledge. And those who continue to throw those charges against him only do that, they build no plausible scientific case. > The one area where leadership has made a difference in selected countries is in prevention activities, and the Reagan administration can be faulted there. BUT that was not the core of the activists’ case against Reagan, it was the “cure.” Furthermore, knowledge of HIV and how to avoid contracting it has been widespread within American society for a very long time, dating at least from the mass mailing by Reagan Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, yet people still continue to become infected. We all know that there is a very large element of personal responsibility in the transmission of new infections, a fact that too many activists continue to downplay. > If the activist case against Reagan were valid, then it would be equally valid to lay medical successes at the feet of the sitting President. When was the last time that Eisenhower got credit for the miraculous polio vaccine? The fact is, we give credit to those who actually do the work or significantly impede it. With the benefit of a longer course of history, it is clear that Reagan did little of either. I feel that the news coverage is largely justified. > > I tend to agree. For the record: Reagan didn’t give me HIV. Another gay man did, with my unwitting consent. I did practise safer sex, but it obviously failed. That is my responsibility and bad luck - no one else’s. But it is equally true that Reagan’s silence for so long was inexcusable. He was silent because he and Bill Bennett and Gary Bauer believed that gay lives were not worth as much as straight ones. There is no other explanation. If an epidemic had broken out affecting, say, elderly women, is it conceivable Reagan would have said nothing for four and a half years? Nope. In my practical defense of the Reagan administration, I do not mean to provide a moral defense. As even Jesse Helms came to realize, there is none ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/134 "2004-06-10T17:09:43Z")
Thank you for the post of that exchange, **spectrum**. I’d like to point out a couple things. According to one of the histories of AIDS that I posted earlier, _"The term AIDS (“acquired immune dificiency syndrome”) is used for the first time on July 27th._". That there was derisive laughter from the press room is not surprising. Sad, inexcusable, but not surprising. > [@](#): > > While this hypothetical speech would have seem mushy and ineffective (or even counter-productive) to you, for the GLBT community, it would have been at least a token gesture that 1) the President acknowledged there was a problem and 2) acknowledged that the GLBT community was part of the electorate and as such, deserving of his compassion and leadership. First, I appologize if my use of the word mushy made it seem that _I_ consider the deaths of gay people to be unimportant. I did not mean it that way. I have to respectfully disagree with you, however. Many in the gay community did not suddenly begin hating Ronald Reagan because of his refusal to mention the word “AIDS”. Many hated him quite vociferously before that. If he had come out with a statement like the one proposed by **plnnr** \* the story would have been “Reagan talks a good game but does not back it up with funding.” Or worse. His mentioning of the fact that the disease seems to strike gay men would have been called obviously homophobic. Perhaps even an attempt to foment homophobic sentiment in the country. I understand the point that some people would have felt better. I maintain, however, that those people who died would still have died. I maintain, also that their deaths would have been just as gruesome and painful to watch for those who were close enough to see them. This means that all of the emotion and pain associated with that time would still exist. Finally, this means that the predominant story would still be that Reagan ignored AIDS. As an exercise, go back and read the statement **plnnr** wrote. Imagine it had been made in 82 or 83. Now remember that just as many would have died. All of Reagan’s other policies would have remained the same. Can you honestly say that any of you would have come into this thread and, because of that speech, defended Reagan? If so, then to that extent I’m wrong. If not, then why don’t you cut an old man some slack? He did what he could given the context of where he was, who he was, and where he had come from. You don’t have to praise his handling of the AIDS crisis. But you don’t have to act like he was some sort of demon either. There is a middle ground. You can dispise his policies, even the man, but still join the nation in mourning the loss of a former president. Think of it like joining a foriegn country in mourning the loss of one of their leaders. You would not be showing any sort of support for that leader’s policies, but you could show support for those members of that country which will miss him. Its not required, of course. But it is polite. \*BTW, Outstanding speech, **plnnr**. Do you write? Proffesionally that is. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/135 "2004-06-10T17:32:52Z")
Thank you for the compliment. No, I do not write speeches professionally. A former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, called the Presidency “the bully pulpit.” By that he meant, of course, that by being the President you have the opportunity to speak directly to the nation and the world, and that people are going to pay attention to what you have to say. They may not agree with it, but, as President, you’ve got the floor whenever you want it. On the issue of AIDS, Reagan refused to use his two greatest assests as President: the bully pulpit and his ability to communicate (he isn’t called “the Great Communicator” for nothing). It was a wasted opportunity to call attention to a growing health care crisis, and it was wasted because the populations most under attack at the time were not his constituency - there can’t be any other explanation. We can’t re-write history, and I have no idea as to whether Ronald Reagan appearing on national television and giving the speech I suggested would have saved anyone, but it certainly would have helped remove the stigma associated with the disease and the people who died from it. My brother, who died from AIDS in 1990, and all the other people who have had their lives touched by it, were certainly worth 2 minutes of national television air time. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/136 "2004-06-10T17:50:29Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > On the issue of AIDS, Reagan refused to use his two greatest assests as President: the bully pulpit and his ability to communicate (he isn’t called “the Great Communicator” for nothing). Agreed with the proviso that failed may be too strong a word. I understand the he could have. I’m simply suggesting that such a thing did not occur to anyone. At least not in the time frame we are talking about. If you mean that he could have made a more stirring appeal for calm compasion later, like 1986 or 1987, then I agree. > [@](#): > > It was a wasted opportunity to call attention to a growing health care crisis, and it was wasted because the populations most under attack at the time were not his constituency - there can’t be any other explanation. But there actually are lots of other expanations. The political situation at the time made it politically unwise for him to make such a speech. > [@](#): > > We can’t re-write history, and I have no idea as to whether Ronald Reagan appearing on national television and giving the speech I suggested would have saved anyone, but it certainly would have helped remove the stigma associated with the disease and the people who died from it. But there is good evidence that it would not have saved anyone. And I think a reasonable case could be made that if the speech had been made early enough, it may have made the situation worse. I hope you remember the homophobic attitudes which were prevelant at the time. Go back and look at the laughter parts of the post from **spectrum**. Derision and suspicion of gay people was very deeply entrenched at that time. The country was going through a recession in 81 and 82. Reagan’s approval numbers were in the toilet. I think I remember him joking that all he had to do was get shot again. It is quite plausible that him making that speech could have had the opposite of the desired effect. > [@](#): > > My brother, who died from AIDS in 1990, and all the other people who have had their lives touched by it, were certainly worth 2 minutes of national television air time. I’m sorry for your loss. And I agree that his life was certainly worth much more than 2 minutes on TV. I am not saying that Reagan handled the AIDS crisis perfectly. I’m not even claiming that he did so acceptably. If any president could have made the speech you wrote and had it have the desired effect, Reagan was the one to do it. Bush would have sounded too cold. Clinton would simply have been derided for his liberalism. So, in hind sight, it is almost certainly desireable that Reagan should have made such a speech possibly as early as 1983. At the same time, I’m not sure Reagan deserves the vitriol that is aimed at him over this issue. I understand it is an emotional issue. That does not mean that any particular person deserves blame. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/137 "2004-06-10T18:07:02Z")
Reagan should have done something. People were crying for him to do something. All he had to do was ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS. That alone would have lent weight to the cause of those sick. But he wouldn’t do it, and the longer this thread goes on, the more reprehensible I find his inaction. The man was a coward on this. A despicable coward. History will rightfully factor this into the final determination on his presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/138 "2004-06-10T18:48:57Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > No, but he could have said this: > > "My fellow Americans. There is a health crisis in American right now called AIDS, and there is every indication that, while it is currently found mostly in the gay community and in the community of IV drug users, it could easily cross-over into the general population. There is much that we don’t know about the disease, but one thing we do know - that it kills our fellow citizens and leaves in its wake bereaved families and friends. > > I have asked my Surgeon General to bring the power of his office and staff to bear on this disease, and prepare a plan for educationing the public on its prevention. In the meantime, I ask that you learn what you can about AIDS, and take steps to protect yourself if you believe you may be at risk. Finally, I ask that you continue to love and support anyone that you know that may contract this terrible disease. > > Thank you, and God Bless America." > > Hell, he could have said that without cue cards in about 2 minutes. Right, he could have said that. But he would have been wrong. There was no indication during the 80s that AIDS was going to become at all common among American heterosexual non-IVDAs. It has not become so now in the US. There is no indication now that it is going to in the US. Throughout Reagan’s terms, AIDS in America was confined primarily to gay/bisexual men, IV drug abusers, hemophiliacs, and their sex partners and children. We didn’t know anywhere near as much then as we do now. There was no blood test for AIDS until 1985. Read the Sullivan transcript provided by **spectrum**. They thought that some people were immune, and mentioning the disease made some people - reporters, not the President - _laugh_. They didn’t know that LAV and HTLV-III were the same virus until 1985. Nor was it known for certain that AIDS is never spread thru casual contact. And Koop **did** bring his office to bear on the problem, and his report was published in 1986. You are asking Reagan to act on information that was simply not available in 1984, and adopt the PC attitude toward a disease that was by no means fully understood. And, by and large, admitting that it would have done no good at all. I don’t recall people making a big fuss because Reagan didn’t speak out against Alzheimer’s either. Would that have made any difference? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/139 "2004-06-10T18:59:04Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Reagan should have done something. Well, but he did. Do something, that is. > [@](#): > > People were crying for him to do something. All he had to do was ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS. That alone would have lent weight to the cause of those sick. But he did this. In 1986 the surgeon general prepared a report, took the unprecedented step of mailing a pamphlet to every American houshold, and the NIH increased its AIDS research funding again (they had done so, I think, every year since 1981). Clearly, simply acknowledging the crisis was not enough. I’m truly at a loss to understand what you want from the man. I agree that more could have been done. I agree that the situation called for more leadership than he provided. But characterizing him as having ignored the problem is simply beyond my ability to comprehend. Perhaps I lack the proper perspective. > [@](#): > > But he wouldn’t do it, and the longer this thread goes on, the more reprehensible I find his inaction. I understand that you are angry. The suffering you must have endured to lead to such anger I am truly sorry for. > [@](#): > > The man was a coward on this. A despicable coward. Well, on this issue, that may be true. I really don’t agree, but it may be true. > [@](#): > > History will rightfully factor this into the final determination on his presidency. Absolutely. The distance of history will hopefully grant us the perspective to see his actions he took (and those he did not) in the context they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085/140 "2004-06-10T19:11:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > …thought that some people were immune, and mentioning the disease made some people - reporters, not the President - _laugh_… Ahem. [http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week\_2004\_06\_06.html#001585](http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_06_06.html#001585) “The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan’s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing…” Caveat: Tom Tomorrow’s blog site is most assuredly lefty-wingy, but I have yet to see his integrity challenged as regards a strict adherence to truth. If so challenged, I would be willing to try to Google a more reliable reference. But that is tiresome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-ronald-reagan-have-done-about-aids/249085.md?page=8)