Ronald Wilson Reagan

[Blog]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
Unfortunately, this is a VERY common viewpoint in the "gay community" and a good example of that can be seen at the gay news site gaytoday.com by clicking here (Disclaimer: this news site has some risque banner ads)

I don't know who started it, but it seems to be a myth, Andrew Sullivan, a gay man with HIV who has a fairly popular blog (go blogs!) on the subject:

REAGAN AND AIDS: I have been upbraided for not mentioning Ronald Reagan's AIDS legacy in describing him as my hero. The basic argument from the gay left is that Reagan was single-handedly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people by negligence. This, however, borders on loopy. Reagan should indeed be faulted for not doing more to warn people of the dangers of infection early enough (Thatcher was far better). But the truth is that it was pretty obvious very early on that something dangerous was afoot as AIDS first surfaced. Just read Larry Kramer at the time. Many people most at risk were aware - mostly too late, alas - that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing "And The Band Played On," to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished. As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms - not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after. Yes, the Congress was critical in this. But by 1986, Reagan had endorsed a large prevention and research effort and declared in his budget message that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services." In September 1985, Reagan said:

"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."

But the sad truth is also that there was never going to be an easy answer to HIV in the Reagan years. Throwing even more money at research in those days would not have helped much. Anthony Fauci's NIH, goaded by heroes like Larry Kramer, was already pushing for focus and resources; FDA red tape was loosened considerably; and the painfully slow scientific process continued. The fact that we got revolutionary drugs in trials by the early 1990s was itself an heroic scientific achievement - arguably the most miraculous progress in a medical emergency since the polio vaccine. Should Reagan have done more? Yes. Were people like Bill Bennett and Gary Bauer responsible for delaying a real prevention response because only gays were dying? You bet. But was Reagan ultimately responsible for so many tragic, early deaths? No. HIV was. Viruses happen. It's a blemish on his record, but not as profound as some, with understandable grief, want to make it out to be.

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...67202656741224

More of his thoughts on Reagan and gays here (you might have to scroll around some):

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?...66721681460437

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Sioubisae
May dear Ronnie meet up with all the souls of AIDS victims who died during his term in office. 8 years passed as the epidemic grew and he kept silent on the subject.

This is absolute hate speech that is no better than fag bashers who drag homosexuals behind their pickup trucks.

I imagine if you had a little more time to think about your post and if you knew more about Ronald Reagan and AIDS in the 1980s you probably wouldn't be so fast to vomit forth such false propaganda.

Ronald Reagan was not responsible for AIDS. It is totally absurd to put the blame on him for it.

Are you aware that the entirety of human civilization has never cured a *SINGLE* virus?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure the common cold?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure cancer?

Which President(s) do we blame for the failure to cure heart disease?

Those things kill a lot more people than HIV/AIDS. Who do we blame for that?

As Graeblyn said, which other deadly ailment will you pull research dollars away from?

AIDS/HIV research already gets a disproportionate amount of dollars per death compared to countless other ailments. Is that right? Is that fair? The only reason it happens is because of the politicization of this *ONE* ailment.

Do you expect a President to solve every single problem that exists, predict every single problem on the horizon, and find every single problem lurking behind the scenes, and resolve them all?

The Cold War was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS.

The threat of communism was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS.

Stagflation was a far more severe problem in the 1980s than AIDS. If it weren't for the economic boom Reagan ushered in how much money would there have been for AIDS research? Not much.

I hope you realize that the market boom of the 1980s is what generated the capital investment in our amazing biotech and pharmeceutical companies that now produce the HIV/AIDS treatments that are preventing the onset of AIDS and allowing HIV infected people to live long, productive lives post-diagnosis.

Blaming AIDS deaths on Ronald Reagan would be like blaming Hurricane Andrew on George Bush, Sr.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Aristotle
This is absolute hate speech that is no better than fag bashers who drag homosexuals behind their pickup trucks.

I debated responding to this, after all, Sioubisae is a big girl, and presumably doesn't need me to jump in on her behalf. However, you DID invoke my name elsewhere in this vile post, so I AM going to respond just to the point above.

Although I don't agree with the criticisms Sioubisae made against Reagan's legacy, to say criticizing a dead president is no "better" than expressing hatred towards someone who is different then yourself in such a cruel, sadistic manner as to tie them to the back of a pickup truck and drag them to their death is truly disgusting. The vileness of your sentiment is only compounded by your continued insistence on referring to such hate crimes as "fag bashing" rather then "gay bashing." I acknowledge you aren't homophobic yourself, but you seem all too willing to take advantage of homphobia when it will serve your purposes in an argument. I remember all the excuses you posited the time you did this very same thing, but directed at me, rather then Sioubisae. If you want to rehash them all again, that is certainly your choice, but it won't change my mind any more then it did the last time. Unless Sioubisae were endorsing torturing President Reagan to death because he was straight, you would have no point at all, and even then, there is STILL no excuse to invoke vile words like "fag" in your post.

[Sioubisae]

My first post just said I hope he meets up with all those souls.

During the years of 1978-1985, AIDS was pegged as a gay disease. As more and more fell, and it was realized by both the medical community as well as the gay community how widespread this could become, they started to urge the president to just "legitimize" the whole situation by giving AIDS credence. Instead, he kept silent on the whole issue, PAVING (not making) the road for other politicians to either ignore the disease or just paint it as just a gay disease.

Even in California, legistlature were appear on ballots that basically wanted anyone who even tested for AIDS to be confined to a specific community so this wouldn't spread.

Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

You all are looking at the results of hard work by AIDS foundations and entertainers working hard to spread the word about aids, which is why AIDS has the largest budget now.

None of you can imagine being in a roomfull of dying people, all waiting for the president of THEIR country to give them some sort of acknowledgement. We watched his speeches like we would watch Dynasty.

My anger is at that. That millions of his countrymen were dying and he never acknowledged that the disease existed. I just want those dead souls to teach him Yes, Ronnie, there IS such a thing as AIDS.

[Aristotle]

Graeblyn, savaging and defaming an innocent man's reputation when he has just died is hate speech. There is nothing vile about comparing it to the people who engage in hate speech and hate crimes against homosexuals. Such behavior is loathsome no matter who it is directed at.

You need to re-read the context of my use of the term "fag bashing." I'm talking about the people who engage in that behavior and call it that themselves. You used the word "fag' in your post. Does that make your post "vile"? Nope. If a bunch of White Power morons were chanting "DIE NIGGERS" would the news media be "vile" for playing a recording of them saying it? Of course not. It is exactly the same thing.

It is THEIR term, not mine, and that is why it was used in that context.

There is nothing "vile" at all about the comparison. Trying to destroy the reputation of great men or women who loved their country and did great things for their country discourages OTHER great men or women in the future from devoting themselves to serving and improving the country. The costs of that are enormous. It is a big reason we have such a pathetic corps of politicians these days. The good people don't want to suffer this kind of indignity.

I would argue that destroying the reputations of great patriots and thereby discouraging other people from serving their country is at LEAST as harmful and heinous as murdering and torturing a single person.

It is absolutely absurd to blame Ronald Reagan for even a SINGLE death to HIV/AIDS.

There are countless other severe ailments that are far more deadly which CANNOT be avoided through lifestyle choices (not using drugs and not having casual, unprotected sex). When it comes to cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. you have no such simple options for avoidance.

It is absolutely ridiculous and hateful to blame a President for deaths to a virus he had absolutely no control over. Even the criticism that he was "slow" to push for funding is ridiculous. You can armchair quarterback all day long but the reality is that there were FAR MORE IMPORTANT issues the country had to deal with at that time and in the end, Reagan pushed for and obtained over $8 billion in funding for HIV/AIDS research.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Sioubisae
Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

Compared to now it was definitely the dark ages. The WWW was invented in 1991. It was not widely used until the late 1990s. You absolutely cannot compare the spread of information now to anything pre-WWW.

Originally posted by Sioubisae
You all are looking at the results of hard work by AIDS foundations and entertainers working hard to spread the word about aids, which is why AIDS has the largest budget now.

Then those are the people to blame for an unfair and disproportionate amount of time and money being devoted to AIDS/HIV instead of other ailments that kill a lot more people- ailments that are UNAVOIDABLE whereas HIV/AIDS is mostly avoidable (the exception being people who get it through blood transfusions).

It is completely outrageous how many members of and groups from the gay community act like HIV/AIDS is some magically special ailment that deserves 1000 times more attention than cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, or every other major life threatening disaster. It deserves an amount of funding proportional to the number of deaths, the avoidability of the ailment, and the prospects for successfully curing it- not more.

It doesn't deserve a higher percentage simply because a single group of people are able to make the biggest political stink about it and hold people's feet to the fire if they don't make it their top priority.

Originally posted by Sioubisae
None of you can imagine being in a roomfull of dying people, all waiting for the president of THEIR country to give them some sort of acknowledgement. We watched his speeches like we would watch Dynasty.

My anger is at that. That millions of his countrymen were dying and he never acknowledged that the disease existed. I just want those dead souls to teach him Yes, Ronnie, there IS such a thing as AIDS.

Anyone doing the above needs to get off their self-important high horse.

There are a lot of problems in any country that get solved whether or not the President addresses them specifically.

There were FAR more important issues in the 1980s than *ONE* ailment. Please stop acting like it was the most important thing and that the only way any progress could be made would be if the President made it a priority.

You are expecting a level of omniscience from President Reagan that is unfair to demand and totally irrational. It is absolutely disgusting that you are holding Ronald Reagan personally responsible for something that was not even .0000000001% his fault.

It is really sad that the BEST one can do to blame Reagan for this is to say worthless things like "well, he could have at least acknowledged it in his speeches."

Give me a break. He DID acknowledge it. He spent $8 billion dollars on it! The best one can do is complain that he could have done things sooner but that's irrational hindsight.

Someone could have put a bullet in Osama Bin Laden's head at age 3 but how the hell could anyone know what he would become?

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Sioubisae
My first post just said I hope he meets up with all those souls.

During the years of 1978-1985, AIDS was pegged as a gay disease.

Sometime hindsight is 20/20 and a President is a leader, a leader makes choices based on information they HAVE AT THE TIME. I really feel like you have passed judgment on Pres. Reagan for knowledge that you personally possess, and that medical doctors possess, now looking back to that point in time. It's wrong to do that. There is no way Pres. Reagan could possibly have known then what we know now. So because of that it does appear that your statement was incredibly cruel, harsh, and uncalled for mudslinging.

You can't blame Pres. Reagan for those that died from AIDS. Unless I am wrong, for the most part AIDS is transmitted willingly through sexual intercourse. This involves heterosexuals just as it involves homosexuals.

Compare the lack of news on AIDS between 1978-1985 to SARS. yes, we're in a faster informational age right now but 1978-1985 wasn't the dark ages either.

Ok, again, we're living in a completely different era. This is going to sound harsh but Pres. Reagan had other important things to deal with and the people focusing on AIDS really had no clue what was going on or where it was coming from. You can NOT blame the failure of the entire scientific and medical community on him, that's just not fair but it's what you've done by saying that somehow he has caused more people to die.

[Sioubisae]

hmm then a question.

We can attribute all these things to one man: having a booming economy during the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall (read any eulogy praising him and you will see examples).

Yet we cannot say that because a leader of the country didn't set an example by the verbal acknowledgement of such a disease, the silence led to a tacit acceptance that since it's a gay disease, why bother telling people or throw money at it? That instead, the best way to deal with this is to lock the ones who test away?

Kudos to the American public who DIDN'T vote this type of legislature into being. However, living during that era, it was really scary realizing a form of McCarthyism was raising its head and the president didn't care enough to address it (or worse, thought the people it affected wasn't his constituents anyway so why bother).

I am not trying to destroy Reagan's legacy. I just have never been a believer in whitewashing after death. My dead friends taught me this lesson, that laughing at someone's foibles after they're dead is an okay deed because all my friends wanted to be known for who they were. There's plenty of other who want to praise Reagan. Let them be his voice.

[Frobozz]

This is quickly devolving and will continue to devolve into a political and moral discussion that gets away from the main point of the post.

[Aristotle]

Siou, you aren't seeing the point.

Ronald Reagan gets credit for those things because those were the most important things affecting our country at the time and those were the issues he was voted into office to deal with.

AIDS/HIV was a totally unknown and not understood ailment that appeared suddenly with no warning.

We voted Reagan into office to fix the economy and fight the Cold War. He did that and did it brilliantly.

The booming economy he played a major role in creating was the driving force behind the amazing growth of our pharmeceutical and biotech industries- the same industries that eventually developed the various drug "cocktails" that make HIV/AIDS a more surviveable ailment.

Tragedies happen all the time. To single out the PRESIDENT for blame simply because something bad began during his administration is outrageous and hateful.

The threat of communism, the Cold War, and the economy were the most important issues of the 1980s. Trying to deny that is wrongheaded and is evidence of warped priorities.

Of course, a lot of people also think AIDS/HIV should get more research dollars than cancer and heart disease. That's warped too.