Cheap shot? Perhaps, but no less true. For example, Bob Casey, late former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, whose only major deviation from most Democratic Party positions was on abortion was heckled as “racist, sexist and anti-gay” by liberal activists. And the major group organizing protests in opposition to Bush’s war on Iraq has interstingly chosen the acronym “ANSWER”, the middle two letters of which stand, reasonably, for “Stop War”, but the last two of which stand, rather unreasonably, for “End Racism.” How did that get thrown into the mix?
Maybe conservatives have done the same in the past. But this thread isn’t about a liberal, it’s about Ronald Reagan and what he could have done that would have rendered his critics’ accusations about AIDS insensitivity null. And I maintain: nothing. When liberals don’t like a person’s policies (and in the case of Casey, above, it was just one item! but it seems to be used as a litmus test by the left, more so than on the right), they will generally paint him with all of their most despised attributes…truthfully or otherwise.
And I repeat: 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.
I said what I said - that gay activists in the 80s would have reacted to anything Reagan said with hysteria.
One doesn’t blame anyone - unless it is Ronald Reagan.
Come on, this is just silly. No one in this thread said that HIV was a judgement from God, or that it went after “bad people”, or any of the rest of it. I said that gay activists in the 80s blamed Reagan for not speaking just as they would have blamed him for speaking.
And none of it would have made a damn bit of difference. AIDS did not spread throughout the gay population of the US because of Ronald Reagan not making enough speeches about it, or because we didn’t spend more on it than practically any other disease.
It has been twenty years and more, and we still don’t have a vaccine, or a cure. We have some treatments, but if we want to prevent it from spreading, we still have what we had in the 80s - latex, and common sense. And I think we ought to use both.
Which is exactly what Reagan would have been condemned for recommending.
OK, this is the thing that you aren’t understanding.
What if Bush hadn’t made a public statement about 9/11 for a few years?
No, Bush’s IMMEDIATE statements and leadership - even if, at the time, it was just in words, in SAYING SOMETHING, in BEING THERE, and in ASSURING US THAT SOMETHING WAS BEING DONE, that got us through those toughest of days (and led us into temporary dellusion that he was something other than a demonic ape, but that is another few hundred threads).
No one is arguing that Reagan held the cure to AIDS in his hands and withheld it (though some more tin foil-types would argue that he had it created). We are arguing that he was a GOD DAMN HORRIBLE LEADER about the whole situation.
Seriously, what kind of asshole who, when in charge of running a country, sits there and ignores an EPIDEMIC, just because it mostly affects people whose lifestyles he disagrees with?
Just for that, I’ll spit on his grave, just like I’ll spit on Clinton’s over Rwanda.
cmkeller: Well, I was being a smartass. That’s the sort of thing that I do. And I must profess ignorance inre Bob Casey. If I get the opportunity, I’ll check it out of the morrow. And ANSWER has been around for a long time. Iraqle is just their latest cause.
And I don’t think that I need to point out to you the folly of using one group to paint an entire slice of the political spectrum. At least, I don’t think I do.
No, not maybe. Definitely. But as you say:
And you’re welcome to maintain whatever you so desire. But I spent some time talking to friends who share my opinion about Reagan, and asked them if they would feel differently if Reagan had done something besides steadfastly ignore a disease that was killing Americans by the pantload. They all said, “Yes.” Then expounded (because when we gather, we do that sort of thing) that if Reagan had acknowledged that some really bad shit was going down and acted like the lives that were being lost mattered in any way shape or form, that they would probably feel a little less enmity. So, to repeat, neither of us can say with certainty what would have happened, but I now have testimony that I’m right from a lot of people who were directly affected by AIDs. What do you have besides your dead certainty?
Perhaps then there wouldn’t have been so many misconceptions about AIDS, had the president paid more attention. Perhaps Koop could have gotten awareness campaigns, and people would know the truth-not the myths.
Maybe then there wouldn’t have been rumors about people getting it from touching someone with AIDS. Maybe then Ryan White wouldn’t have had to sue to be allowed to go back to school.
Or maybe not. Who knows?
I find it amusing that there are people who think that the Berlin wall fell because Reagan said, “Tear down this wall!” but say that nothing he would have said about AIDS would have done a thing.
How about your own sources. Go back and ask them what they would have thought if Reagan had said something along the lines of “Just say no to gay sex”. Wanna bet that they would have hated him even more than they do now? Even if he had said something along those lines with thier best interests at heart?
You hate Saudi Arabia more each day?? Interesting. Perhaps you were unaware where Paul in Saudi lives. I can see the confusion…too bad he doesn’t tell us, give us a hint or something…
There are a lot of religious/conservative people that fit this bill. There are all kinds of athiest/liberals that fit this bill too btw. Prejudice takes many forms, and people are blind sometimes to what they don’t approve of, or what they don’t understand.
Again, I don’t really think RR grasped the problem, nor the magnitude of it…and to a certain extent I’d say he probable didn’t really WANT too either, as he didn’t think it really effected ‘main stream’ America. He was what he was…a stone age conservative, someone who didn’t approve of the gay lifestyle. What you are REALLY asking is for him to have been able to put his nature aside, his beliefs and yes, his prejudices, and rise above himself. .
Some men are flexable, able to rise above their background and the things that make up the core of their being…RR wasn’t one of them. But he’s hardly alone in not being able to rise above his nature, to put it aside and do something contrary to his beliefs but for the good of the country. Hell, THOSE kinds of men are pretty rare…and rarer still are those kinds of presidents. I can’t think of a single one in my lifetime in fact that has been able to rise above his nature and do the right thing against his core beliefs (and faults and prejudices) for the good of the country. These are politicians we are talking abou there after all. Can you think of anyone who has been able to put aside their nature or their prejudices and rise above them…and in so little time, when they ALSO have so much else going on? Remember, Regan was pretty much focused on the Soviets as the major threat to the US…that was his main focus. Secondary to that would have been the laboring economy.
So, it would have been an impressive GESTURE if he had of been able to rise above his nature and beliefs and speak out in a positive way…but in the end, it would only have BEEN a gesture, as there was nothing he could have done or said that wasn’t already being done or said. I lived through that time…I was in my mid 20’s then, going to college, learning about the world…and doing all those bad and dangerous things college kids do. I had friends die also from AIDS, both hetro and gay…several of them in fact, and it was VERY painful. My wife and I lost one of our best friends AND his partner in the span of a single year…the guy who was the godfather to my first born son in fact.
But IMO, we didn’t really need RR to tell us what was happening, and I for one wouldn’t have been reassured by a speach by him on it…would you REALLY have been? Would anyone really have listened, really have heard his words? And what exactly would he have said? Gods know…
If this was directed at me, then thank you very much for proving my point. Notice I did not say that anything was anybodies’ fault. I simply said that given that a particular (deadly) disease was being spread by a particular behavior vector, then perhaps curtailing said behavior would have been a good idea until a better preventative became available. Your response is exactly what the response at the time would have been. Thanks for proving my point.
Let’s change the parameters a little. If Reagan had said something along the lines of “Gee I’m sorry so many people are dying”, but not actually done anyting different than he did, are any of you serisously maintaining that he would have been loved by the gay community?
No, but he would have been much less despised. His complete and utter indifference was disturbing. He simply didn’t give a shit. That says something about Reagan as a person. Regardless of whether it would have made a difference, he didn’t even make an attempt to lead us through the crises.
So then are we agreed again. He should have said something, but no matter what he said or did, it would have made darn little difference? Had RR spoken out people would have still called him homophobic and whatnot. The R&D effort would not have advanced all that much (some thing don’t go twice as fast with twice as much money). Gay people would have still rejected efforts to curb the most hazardous parts of their lifestyle that unleashed a plague.
I notice that nobody mentions the hemophiliacs and folks who received blood during surgery who died, like Isaac Asimov and Amanda Wells (Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke). Their deaths, too, can be laid at Reagan’s door because of his inaction–here you folks who despise gay people don’t have the crutch of your bigotry to fortify your indifference.
I’m curious as to whether the folks in this thread who believed “Reagan couldn’t have made a difference if he had said something” also believed “Bill Clinton’s escapades with Monica Lewinsky unduly influenced America’s youth that oral sex is okay.”
I mean, is the President of the United States an office that can have a major influence on people and set the course for a populace, or is it just a figurehead position that doesn’t amount to much?
And aren’t you projecting your own ideas on how the GLBT community of the time would react? If the Great Communicator had turned some of his charm onto the GLBT community instead of almost completely ignoring it, who knows what would have happened? If he had been a leader and acknowledged a problem, tried to show compassion for those suffering and encouraged others to follow his lead, the hysteria surrounding AIDS and the epidemic might not have been so bad. Certainly there would be the extreme fringe who would have called him homophobic, etc, but that’s the extreme element. And as has been mentioned, the GLBT community is certainly not monolithic, all of one mind and opinion.
I think this points to a deeper problem, one for another thread, to be sure but I’ll mention it here. The current administration and Republicans in general seem to spurn the GLBT community or at best give it lip service. Bill Clinton, for all of his faults, at least acknowledged our existence and actively sought us out. Reagan, GHWB and Dubya seem to actively spurn us or pay, at most, lip service.
Consider this alternative, what if a similar situation was going thru the veteran community and the President gave at best, lip service acknowledgement to the problem. Wouldn’t you feel anger and frustration toward him? Now can you understand why I hold little compassion for Reagan ?
Moral obligations are not based on efficacy. You see a child drowning, you swim to help him. You do not wait for a “cost effective” analysis.
I wouldn’t have. For one. And I don’t regard Reagan as especially homophobic, just indifferent to the suffering of his fellow Americans. Mr. Reagan’s compassion was contingent on an acceptable orientation and life-style.
Research does. Money is the very blood of research. We discover now, to our dismay, that HIV is a bad mother of a virus, a “perfect storm” of a bug. But it took one hell of a lot of research and money just to find out how little research and money could help. We did not know that then.
There is no such thing as “gay people”, just as there is no such thing as a community of left-handed people. Your assertion that you can predict the behavior and opinions of people based entirely on thier sexual orientation is unsupportable.
As well, it was the virus that “unleashed” the plague. The cunning dormancy of the disease assured that by the time anybody knew how it was spread, it was already spread. A vow of celibacy would have been entirely useless to one already infected.
Further, I urge you to be very careful before you suggest limiting your compassion to those whom, in your judgement, are deserving. I have it on very good authority that this is short of the mark.