And you know what was in his mind how exactly? So you are saying his (not) doing something is not so bad, except for the reason he choose to (not) do it?
Frankly I do not follow this line of reasoning at all.
He did not do enough, but even if he had done more I fail to see how it would have made a big difference. The gay community and (to a lesser extent) hetrosexarians knew what to do.
A couple of presidential speeches would have made little real difference.
(I will be going to bed soon. Please do not think I am ignoring your replies, which I value greatly.)
Well, I don’t know much about your ass, but how does this contridict what I said? You think wishing something would just go away shows a profound grasp of the problem? Again, I don’t think he was capable of GRASPING the problem, not at a fundamental level. Sure, he knew WHAT homosexual behavior was intellectually, but he didn’t understand it (in fact it went against his ‘moral’ philosophy so to speak), and didn’t understand the cross over of a disease that was effecting the gay community to the hetero community.
And again, even if he COULD have grasped the problem, even if he DID come out and start doing something about it earlier (something I just don’t think he was capable of doing early on), I don’t think it would have made a bit of difference…except that this wouldn’t now be something the left would be attacking the man on. They would simply shift to something else.
Very clever . That actually sounds like something he’d say.
Yes, Reagan should have come out and said something rational and useful about AIDS from the start. Let’s also remember that the world didn’t have anything comparable to this disease in past medical history. AIDS was and still is a sinister, baffling, and incredibly frustrating disease to combat. It was and still is unlike anything seen before. It took a while for a lot of the world to understand it, and come to grips with it, and I think that is where Reagan falls, in the realm of confusion and discomfort. I think this is the real legacy.
Fair enough. I don’t know what thoughts (heh) passed through his head. However, I can base some conclusions on his actions. He failed to mention a disease that was killing a helluva lot of US citizens until it had begun killing straight folks. Or even, for that matter, allowing Koop to speak out on it. So while I am unable to speak on what thoughts that Reagan may have entertained, his actions speak volumes.
Not to worry. There are scads of people who don’t know much about my ass. And he may have never spoken a word about it, but he damned well knew that people were dying. ‘Moral’ philosophy be damned, when the death toll is as high as it was, you say something. I gotta tell you that if some sort of virus was killing people that I disagreed with, and I was seated in the bully pulpit, then I like to think that I would do the decent thing and speak the name of the disease that was killing people and call for work on the problem. Hell, if nothing else, it would have picked up extra votes and had fewer people bitching about this aspect of his presidency, as you point out. That should be worth something.
No, indeed, Ron’s speaking out would not have slowed so much as a single virus. As well, it is entirely possible that his support would not have resulted in massive funding for research.
When I visit a friend in the hospital, his bones do not knit any more quickly. When my child is ill, his mother’s voice doesn’t kill any more steptoccocus than mine own. Similarly, the President has no magic curative power beyond that accorded to all of us: recognizing and honoring the humanity of the suffering, that they are us, and we are they.
He could have honored thier humanity, and his, and ours. It was the decent thing to do.
You know, Shodan, I’ve come to think of you recently as a reasonable person who I could disagree with in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and then you write a post like this.
A proper response to educate you on the early days of AIDS, how much was unknown, the fear and pain the gay community went through, and the apathy and uselessness of the government would take pages to write and even then you wouldn’t care.
So I’ll pit it simply: Friends of mine died who could have been saved if the resources to find HIV and to educate gay men on safer sex had been there from the beginning.
That should be “put it simply”: I have no intention of Pitting you, or even being angry with you. I’m too numb right now from seeing how callous you are. I’m sure that dead gay men are amusing to you, but some of them were my friends, and they’re gone and I miss them.
I don’t think so. Liberal activists have a habit of tarring their conservative opponents with a variety of labels, regardless of if all those labels apply to them.
Most likely, if he would have “let Koop speak out on it”, Koop would have gotten whatever credit there was to be gotten (and probably precious little of that), and Reagan would have remained the same demon to AIDS activists.
All of this is not to say that I think it’s right to tell a Surgeon General to not speak on a public health issue. But I still think that, given his overall conservatism, there’s nothing he could have done (while “remaining the same dotty old coot that he was”) that would have not earned him the scorn of AIDS activists.
It’s not even just about the fact that he didn’t mention the word until 1987, although that alone is horrid and unbelievable. How about the fact that virtually no money for treatment, care, research, etc, was provided until tens of thousands of people were dead? How about the fact that during the Tylenol scare millions of dollars were spent in the first few days, and the gay communities had to start their own organizations with their own money to even bury the dead?
Since when do the words of your political opponents govern the rightness or wrongness of your actions? Actively preventing the Surgeon General from discussing AIDS with the public was completely wrong, and it was wrong regardless of whether AIDS activists would respond with scorn or showering praise. Can you at least admit to that?
The gay community would have - hell, did - respond with hysteria to anything said by Reagan during the 80s. They did stupid stuff like burn the NYC health commissioner in effigy in 1988. Or read Steven Joseph’s book, 'Dragon Within the Gates", about the campaign of harassment he endured for daring to suggest that the AIDS virus does discriminate. And in 1999, the gay community in San Francisco was pushing the same line as they did in the 80s that closing the bathhouses was homophobic.
If you are trying to suggest that they would have reacted any differently in 1984 than they did to the unfortunates who made the mistake of regarding AIDS as a disease instead of a civil right, I suggest you are mistaken.
They would have reacted to Reagan exactly as you did to my post. By blaming the spread of AIDS on anyone or anything except the ones actually spreading the disease.
When the only point of such actions would have been to make them feel loved or comforted (as per elucidator’s post). If they would not have taken such feelings from the action anyway, then why do them?
I did in fact say that exact thing in my post, if you care to re-read it.
I’m not going to defend all of ACT-UP’s tactics, if only becuae it enable folks like you to extend that to all gay people.
One does’t “blame” anyone for disease. What one does is inform, educate and treat. The federal government under Reagan was disinclined to do any of that. HIV is a virus–it does not go after “bad people,” it’s not a judgment from God. Blame is not an issue here.
Yes, because conservatives never do that. They never call liberals “traitors,” or “communist/terrorist sympathizers,” or “evil,” or “America haters” – and that’s just a selection from the oevre of uber-bitch Ann Coulter.
Perhaps. But if he had shown even a modicum of respect for the humanity of the PWAs, I think that he would be looked at in a much better light inre AIDs. Of course, neither of us can determine what might have happened. But I feel pretty comfortable that I’m right on this one.
Like Elucidator says, “He could have honored thier humanity, and his, and ours. It was the decent thing to do.” And he didn’t. That speaks volumes.
And this:
Is precisely the sort of cheap shot I would have expected me to make. It cheapens you to stoop to my level.
. That actually sounds like something he’d say.