The Myth of Reagan and AIDS
Kevin linked to this piece by Bruce Garrett on Reagan and AIDS (which contains almost no links to back up assertions). SayUncle takes issue with it. I realize fully that the right is deifying Reagan but the left’s vilification is horrendous.
These have nothing to do with Bruce’s assertion but I’ll address them in brief. One claim is that Reagan didn’t fund aids, or didn’t fund it enough, or basically that he was pressured to fund it, or he didn’t do it quickly enough. Not true. Under Reagan’s presidency, almost $6B was spent on AIDS and it started as early as 1981. The other claim is that Reagan didn’t mention it in public until 1987. He signed the funding into law in 1981 so I’d say that’s acknowledging it. And he mentioned (See below) in 1985 and he specifically mentioned funding for it in 1986.
On to Bruce who makes this most asinine assertion:
Does the name Ryan White ring any bells out there? White was a kid who got AIDS by way of the clotting factor he needed to control his hemophilia. From the Ryan White Story Website:
He was determined to continue at his school and live life normally. But in 1985, not many people knew the truth about AIDS. Not very much was known about AIDS. Ryan faced a lot of discrimination, mostly based on the unknown. His school tried to keep him from attending and the town in which he lived was not very supportive, to say the least.
After legal battles, Ryan and his mother settled with the school to have separate restrooms and disposable silverware from the cafeteria. But that didn’t stop much. Students vandalized his locker with the word “FAG” and restaurants threw his dishes away after he left. A bullet was even fired into his home.
That’s putting what happened to this innocent kid mildly. And after he passed away, his gravesite was vandalized repeatedly.
So here comes Reagan, with this opportunity to do what the goddamn leader of the free world is supposed to do, speak up for the innocent, appeal to our better nature, quell the passions of the mob …and the pusillanimous Bastard says he sympathizes with the mob instead!
“I can understand both sides of it.”
Both sides? I’m sorry…Both Sides??? Like…the side that would fire a gun into a boy’s home, because the kid had AIDS? That side?
Passionate stirring scene, eh? Too bad it’s devoid of context. What really happened was at a news conference, someone asked:
Mr. President, returning to something that Mike [Mike Putzel, Associated Press] said, if you had younger children, would you send them to a school with a child who had AIDS?
Reagan said:
I’m glad I’m not faced with that problem today. And I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn’t know and can’t have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem with the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, “This we know for a fact, that it is safe.” And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.
Don’t see Reagan taking the side of the people shooting. I see Reagan admitting a lot wasn’t known at the time about AIDS and he understood the fears of parents. He was also understanding of someone being stricken with this disease and facing hideous acts as a result.
Update: And how do I know that Reagan didn’t ignore AIDS? Because Fred Phelps (that raving, homophobic lunatic) thinks he’s in Hell.
June 11th, 2004 at 5:19 pm
That $6B number looks awfully impressive, but better than 2/3 of it was simply expansions in medicare, and didn’t address research, awareness, etc. According to the gov’t report linked by NRO, between 1981 and 1988, there was a total of $1.9 billion in discretionary spending related to AIDS, $962 million of which (nearly half) was in 1998, and another $500 million (half the remainder) in 1987. This would seem to underscore, rather than to debunk, the idea that Reagan’s government did nothing meaningful about AIDS until 1987.
June 11th, 2004 at 5:22 pm
“I see Reagan admitting a lot wasn’t known at the time about AIDS and he understood the fears of parents. He was also understanding of someone being stricken with this disease and facing hideous acts as a result.”
Nope. He had an oppurtinty to say “I understand, but …” and he did not. he said “I understand.” when even then it was clear AIDS did not come form casual contact. He had an oppurtunity to show some moral leaderhsip, and he sided with fear.
June 11th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Mike
Umm, all that is one member of the media repeating conservative lines about the press corps. I can find you memebers of the media that say the opposiite. There is no actual data to support it, and, has been noted, the authors of the Note tned to lean conservative. Which, I might add, is fine — it is, after all, a quasi-opinion piece.
Sorry, but you haven’t presented evidence, you have presented a restatmeent of the argument, and thats all. I know some people think all reports are liberal and in the clutches of a vast liberal media conspiracy that, somehow, their editors and owners are not able to control. So what — where’s your evidence?
June 11th, 2004 at 6:01 pm
Kevin, he had an opportunity to say lots of things. You can’t assume because he did not say one thing that he endorses the other (like firing bullets into people’s houses).
Since you didn’t say it, can I assume you’re all for firing bullets into AIDS patients houses? After all, you had the opportunity. Seriously weak.
Tom, true, but it’s a far cry from ignoring it and not fundin it.
June 12th, 2004 at 11:58 am
Uncle:
Tom, true, but it’s a far cry from ignoring it and not fundin it.
Oh, give me a break. The pre-1986 amounts are on the scale of Congressional pork. It’s doubtful Reagan even noticed them in the budget, much less pushed for them.
Except that I’m pretty sure that by then, he had said exactly that.
Since you didn’t say it, can I assume you’re all for firing bullets into AIDS patients houses? After all, you had the opportunity.
We had the opportunity, and we came out clearly on record stating that we thing any harassment of such victims is deplorable. Reagan had the opportunity to do the same, and he didn’t. So that you don’t think this is entirely partisan, at one point, Clinton had a similar opportunity with homosexuals in the military, and he didn’t take the high road, either; he’s to be faulted, too.
June 12th, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Except for the part that it wasn’t clear back then. Yes, people were stating it as though it were an established fact back then. That’s not the same as it actually being known at the time. Imagine the outcry if Reagan had sided with the “you can’t catch AIDS through casual contact” crowd and later been proven wrong!
Those who fault Reagan over Ryan White only prove that you really are damned if you, do damned if you don’t.
June 11th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
Reagan and AIDS Revisited
SayUncle takes issue with a post we linked criticizing Reagan’s record on AIDS. We find Uncle’s counter-arguments less than compelling….
July 15th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
It still boggles my mind that people are blaming Reagan for AIDS. As if the gay community was *really* going to pay attention to Reagan, if he had suggested safe sex?
“Hey guys… I was having unprotected sex with other men last week. But now that Reagan has made it an issue, well darn, I guess I need to start wearing a condom.”
Considering that we STILL have 40k a year being infected by AIDS in the US, how in the world do you blame Regan for that??? Its not like AIDS is a secret. Yet, people are still infected.
John