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.)
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.
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.
By the way, is there an evenhanded book on all this? Perhaps And the Band Played On ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From Andrew Sullivan:
So, I’d say the least Reagan could have done was fire this asshat.
That was an excellent C&P. Really shows where were Way Back Then.
This is from Andrew Sullivan’s site
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well, but he did. Do something, that is.
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.
I understand that you are angry. The suffering you must have endured to lead to such anger I am truly sorry for.
Well, on this issue, that may be true. I really don’t agree, but it may be true.
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.
Ahem.
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.