LGBT Reagan and the Eighties AIDS Epidemic

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by NOVAJock, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    A friend of mine asked me if I wanted to go Thursday night here in DC to see Reagan's casket during some procession.

    In some ways I was a little turned off by this idea and ultimately decided not to do it.

    While I think the Reagans were good in some ways for this country back in the eighties, I tend to hold some resentment for his desire to ignore the AIDS epidemic back then.

    Am I justified in feeling this way?
     
  2. [Bartleby]

    [Bartleby] New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, Fl
  3. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular

    December 03, 2003, 9:13 a.m.
    Anti-Gay Gipper
    A lie about Reagan.

    By Deroy Murdock “You're president of the United States," Nancy Reagan, reminded Ronald Reagan as he sat up in bed in 1983. She begged him to do something about the growing scourge of AIDS. "If you don't talk about it, nobody will talk about it. Nobody will do anything, and all these people — these children, these young boys — they're all going to die. And the blame will be on our heads, Ronnie."

    President Reagan quietly kept reading through his half glasses. He seemed very cozy, clad in his bathrobe, beneath his blankets.
    "Ronnie, say something," Nancy pleaded. The president coolly maintained his silence. He never even looked at his beloved First Lady.

    That's how Showtime Sunday night depicted a scene from the White House residence in The Reagans, the controversial TV movie about the conservative chief executive and his devoted wife. Reagan's alleged homophobia and indifference to AIDS patients are among the reasons Reaganites attacked the program, leading CBS to cancel its broadcast premiere and shift it instead to Showtime, the network's sister pay-cable channel.

    The original script was far worse.

    "Those who live in sin will die in sin," says President Reagan, as portrayed by actor James Brolin. Teleplaywright Elizabeth Egloff eventually admitted she had no evidence on which to base this scandalous comment. "We know he ducked the issue over and over again," she told the New York Times in self-defense.

    Ronald Reagan's supposed malign neglect on AIDS and hostility to gays are twin pillars of the Left's anti-Reaganism. He still is scorned for supposedly avoiding the topic in his public pronouncements. Throughout the 1980s, protests by ACT-UP and other AIDS-advocacy groups routinely featured vicious effigies of Reagan. In one vulgar manifestation of this viewpoint, a 1994 cover illustration for Benetton's Colors magazine featured photographer Oliviero Toscani's computer-generated image of President Reagan covered with AIDS-related skin lesions. Toscani denounced Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in La Stampa, a newspaper based in Turin, Italy. "They didn't understand anything about AIDS, they did everything wrong," Toscani said that June 24. "They never realized the emergency."

    Is any of this fair?

    Few men have known Ronald Reagan longer or better than Edwin Meese III. He began working in 1967 with then-governor Reagan in Sacramento, California. He became a president adviser on January 20, 1981, and was appointed Reagan's attorney general in February 1985.

    Meese described to me the TV movie's take on Reagan, AIDS, and gays as "totally unfair, and totally unrepresentative of his views or anything he ever said." Meese, who now chairs the Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, recalls AIDS as a key issue with which Reagan's senior staff grappled.

    "I can remember numerous sessions of the domestic-policy council where the surgeon general provided information to us, and the questions were not whether the federal government would get involved, but what would be the best way. There was support for research through the NIH. There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out."

    "As I recall, from 1984 onward — and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 — every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."

    In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security." Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."

    Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.

    Table 5 of Johnson's report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan's watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency:


    Government Spending on HIV/AIDS
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fiscal Year[/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]($ Millions)[/font]
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]% growth over previous year[/font]
    1982
    8
    1983
    44
    450.00
    1984
    103
    134.09
    1985
    205
    99.03
    1986
    508
    147.80
    1987
    922
    81.50
    1988
    1,615
    75.16
    1989
    2,322
    43.78
    Total

    5,727
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Source: Congressional Research Service[/font]

    Free-marketeers may argue that the federal government should have left AIDS research and care to the private sector. Whether or not one embraces that perspective, no one justifiably can regard Reagan's requested and actual AIDS spending as a gleefully applied death sentence for AIDS sufferers.

    Besides, could much have been done with an even larger cash infusion during the infancy of AIDS?

    "You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole," says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. "There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS." As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that "in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date."

    Reagan also is accused of staying mum about AIDS. According to The Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record of the HIV Epidemic edited by Raymond A. Smith, "Reagan never even mentioned the word 'AIDS' publicly until 1987."

    Actually, as official White House papers cited by Steven Hayward, author of the multi-volume Age of Reagan show, the 40th president spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a question on AIDS research, the president said:



    ncluding 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.
    President Reagan's February 6, 1986 State of the Union address included this specific passage where he says the word "AIDS" five times:



    We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.
    So, AIDS policy aside, was Ronald Reagan a homophobe? Here again, those who know him best just say, "No."

    "According to the screenplay...my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn't gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate," wrote Ronald and Nancy Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, on Time magazine's website. "Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have."

    In fact, she recalls "the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way" in which her dad discussed the topic of homosexuality with her when she was age eight or nine.



    My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, "That looks weird."... All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn't really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women.
    "I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them," says Martin Anderson, a high-level Reagan adviser since 1975, coeditor of Reagan: A Life in Letters, the latest collection of material that Ronald Reagan wrote in his own hand. "I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans," Anderson told me. "We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was 'Leave them alone.'"

    Reagan publicly demonstrated this outlook when he opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. Reagan used both a September 24, 1978, statement and a syndicated newspaper column to campaign against the initiative.

    "Whatever else it is," Reagan wrote, "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." He also argued: "Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher's personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes 'advocacy' of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?"

    That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

    "Despite the urging of some of his conservative supporters, he never made fighting homosexuality a cause," wrote Kenneth T. Walsh, former U.S. News and World Report White House correspondent, in his 1997 biography, Ronald Reagan. "In the final analysis, Reagan felt that what people do in private is their own business, not the government's."

    But what about the comment in Dutch, Edmund Morris' authorized biography of President Reagan? Morris claimed that Reagan once said about AIDS: "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." Morris's book is suspect insofar as he deliberately transformed himself into a character, a buddy of sorts, who follows Reagan throughout his career. Did Reagan actually say this, or did Morris also invent that passage in service to a higher "truth?" And even if Reagan said such a thing, there is a huge difference between expressing Biblical beliefs about AIDS's genesis and, as The Reagans originally claimed, condemning AIDS victims to die from their disease and speeding their demise through official negligence.

    As much as Reagan evidently has exhibited tolerance of homosexuality in his private life, when it comes to public policy, he opposed the persecution of gays and devoted considerable taxpayer resources to AIDS research and treatment.

    Could Reagan have said more about AIDS? Surely, and he might have done so were he less focused on reviving America's moribund economy and peacefully defeating Soviet Communism. Could he have done more? Of course. Who could not have? But the ideas that Ronald Reagan did nothing, or worse, about AIDS and hated gays, to boot, are both tired, left-wing lies about an American legend.

    AUTHOR'S NOTE: The Reagans re-airs on Showtime on Thursday, December 4 from 8:00 to 11:00 P.M. Eastern and Pacific time. It will be followed by "Controversy: "The Reagans," a panel discussion on the film and the Reagan legacy hosted by newsman Frank Sesno. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon and former Reagan advisers Martin Anderson and Linda Chavez are among those who offer their perspectives.

    — Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News.
     
  4. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    http://gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=13&id=3164


    On the Death of Former President Ronald Reagan
    A Letter to My Best Friend, Steven Powsner
    06.07.04

    By Matt Foreman, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

    June 6, 2004


    Dear Steven,

    I so much wish you were here today to tell me what to do. You would know if it's right to comment on the death of former President Reagan, or if I should just let pass the endless paeans to his greatness. But you're not here. The policies of the Reagan administration saw to that.

    Yes, Steven, I do feel for the family and friends of the former President. The death of a loved one is always a profoundly sad occasion, and Mr. Reagan was loved by many. I have tremendous empathy and respect for Mrs. Reagan, who lovingly cared for him through excruciating years of Alzheimer's.

    Sorry, Steven, but even on this day I'm not able to set aside the shaking anger I feel over Reagan's non-response to the AIDS epidemic or for the continuing anti-gay legacy of his administration. Is it personal? Of course. AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths. I remember that day, Steven - you were staying round-the-clock in Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital caring for your dying partner of over 15 years, Bruce Cooper. It was another 41 days of utter agony for both of you before Bruce died. During those years of White House silence and inaction, how many other dear friends did we see sicken and die hideous deaths?

    Is it personal? Yes, Steven. I know for a fact that you would be alive today if the Reagan administration had mounted even a tepid response to the epidemic. If protease inhibitors been available in July of 1995 instead of December, you'd still be here.

    I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude. No, Steven, we knew then it was deliberate. The government's response was dictated by the grip of evangelical Christian conservatives who saw gay people as sinners and AIDS as God's well-deserved punishment. Remember? The White House Director of Communications, Patrick Buchanan, once argued in print that AIDS is nature's revenge on gay men. Reagan's Secretary of Education, William Bennett, and his domestic policy adviser, Gary Bauer, made sure that science (and basic tenets of Christianity, for that matter) never got in the way of politics or what they saw as "God's" work.

    Even so, I think I could let go of this anger if this was just another overwhelmingly sad chapter in our nation's past. It is not. Steven, can you believe that the unholy pact President Reagan and the Republican Party entered with the forces of religious intolerance have not weakened, but grown exponentially stronger? Can you believe that the U.S. government is still bowing to right wing extremists and fighting condom distribution and explicit HIV education, even while AIDS is killing millions across the world? Or that "devout" Christians have forced the scrapping of AIDS prevention programs targeted at HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in favor of bullshit "abstinence only until marriage" initiatives? Or the shameless duplicity of these same forces seeking to forever outlaw even the hope of marriage for gay people? Or that Reagan stalwarts like Buchanan, Bennett and Bauer are still grinding their homophobic axes?

    No, Steven, I do not presume to judge Ronald Reagan's soul or heart. He may very well have been a nice guy. In fact, I don't think that Reagan hated gay people -- I'm sure some of his and Nancy's best friends were gay. But I do know that the Reagan administration's policies on AIDS and anything gay-related resulted - and continue to result - in despair and death.

    Oh, Steven, how much I wish so much you were here.

    Matt (On November 20, 1995, Steven Powsner, died of complications from AIDS at age 40. He had been President of the New York City Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center from 1992-1994.)
     
  5. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    Reagan uhm, well, he wasn't an overall bad president, I wouldnt' say. However, when people say how he did so much for the economy, and then people tell me the economy wasn't all that great during the 80s, I have to wonder who to believe.
     
  6. Sonic

    Sonic Live every day to the fullest, for yesterday is go

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    48,083
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Westchester County,New York
    Would you be so closed minded as to totally ignore all the good he did for the country and dislike him on something small like noy properly funding AIDS research?:hsugh:
     
  7. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    Nope. But his views on homosexuality and AIDS during that time period, especially as outlined in the book "As the Band Played On", is enough for me to not sit in a shit-load of traffic just to go see his casket.

    Just because someone did something great for a country, doesn't mean I agree with everything he stood for and I should support him - dead or alive.
     
  8. Sonic

    Sonic Live every day to the fullest, for yesterday is go

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    48,083
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Westchester County,New York
    I guess, its your right...
     
  9. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    Nope. Not a "right". Simply a choice. :o
     
  10. marxwa99

    marxwa99 Boom Squad

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,493
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    B. Lake, WA
    he's dead, let the higher power determine his fate. As for mourning for him, hes a president. It takes a lot to get over half of the country to feel compelled to vote for you over another person (let's not get started about Bush v. Dole). I feel the most bad for Nancy
     
  11. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm glad he's dead. America's last shift to the right, which he lead, took us all decades backwards. The party which he lead propogated gay hatred and ignored AIDS as a disease afflicting the sub-human. I was 9 years old when he left office, and I thought it was so sad. Now, I wish his fucking helicopter crashed way back then.

    Fuck Reagan.
     
  12. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    I tend to agree...
    :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page