ronald reagan just died

BDBionic · 06-07-2004, 01:18 AM

I think this is a worthwhile read to refute many of the mistruths presented about Reagan's stance towards gays

Could he have done more about AIDS? Sure. Should he have? Probably.
But at the time, what would have been expected of him? I don't see historical evidence of this rabid hatred of homosexuals many accuse him of having had. I'm not sure of what any president would have done at that time. When AIDS wasn't even identified. When no antivirals existed. When people were expecting a cure within a few years. It's as if he's, over time, been blamed for AIDS itself.

Whether or not every gay adult alive in the early to mid 80s feels he hated them could either be an accurate indication of his sentiment towards gays or a politicized mob mentality built upon emotion amidst the trying events of the time.

I think the mistruths about Reagan's actions - refusing to fund AIDS research and refusing to even say the the word "AIDS", both things that are not true but have taken root in the minds of many as truth - have contributed to a passionate dislike of him that has gone on to obscure the fact they're not necessarily based on what really happened.

I'll never understand what it must have been like in those days with the AIDS epidemic emerging and the kinds of emotions that involved, the fear and insecurity and uncertainty and anxiety. I'll assign that disclaimer to the things I say here.
But I think that just as it's a fair assumption someone actually having gone through the events of the time would know quite alot about them in relation to someone who wasn't old enough to experience it then, so to is it a fair assumption to say someone who wasn't old enough to remember the events would have a bit more of an objective and untainted view looking back on them 20 years later.

**Huskyhunks** · 06-07-2004, 01:29 AM

Americans do love their revisionist history. Synthesizing history to meld nicely with their own ideology. Give me real life experience over objective opinion anyday.

BDBionic · 06-07-2004, 04:50 AM

Nothing like a little circumstantial ad hominem to wrap up one's argument, eh?

Who's to say you haven't just been... wrong for the last 20 years?

But really, dictating someone's argument must be wrong because:
1. They don't agree with you.
2. They weren't there at the time.
And then trying to cover your tail with the added condition that because history is revisionist there's absolutely no way anyone who wasn't there could be right because their entire position would be borne from misinformation?

That's the cheap way out of an argument. Unless and until logical fallacy makes a worthy statement, you might want to put a bit more effort in to what you're saying.

There are indeed unique incites afforded to someone who was an adult at the time Reagan was President.
But it does not automatically grant validity to the statement that he was "evil" or didn't care about AIDS. It could make the statement that you felt he was that way at the time. But simply by having been a voter at the time didn't put you in his head.

Revisionist history? I'd say the revisionist history that's come about on Reagan amongst the gay community is the misleading one. We've seen it in this thread and hear it all the time. The assertion that he never even spoke the word "AIDS". People truly believe that because that's what they've been told and it's fashioned itself in to an accepted truth. But is it right? No. We know for a fact that he spoke it in public - including a state of the union address - at least half a dozen times.
So what other mistruths have sprung from that? Watch Showtime's The Reagans if you want revisionist history.

Or are you suggesting that I'm some conservative idologue and thus convince myself to adore Reagan? hah.

It very well may be the case that he was despised by the gay community in the 1980s and that there was little tangible evidence of a concerted effort - or even caring - on his part to mobilize the federal government to confront the AIDS epidemic. But logic dictates that does not translate in to irrefutable evidence that he despised gays and maliciously encouraged the spread of the virus.

When AIDS itself wasn't even identified until midway through his first term? When no anti-virals existed until midway through his second? When everyone expected a cure to come about shortly? How long did it take the gay community itself - the adult community... us... in particular - to universally adopt condom usage and safer sex practices? Where were we as a nation in regard to AIDS?

It's convenient to demonize the man who was leading the country at the time - armed with years of growing animosity towards him within our community - and decide that he's at fault for what happened or that it symbolizes who he was.

But both your having been an adult at that time and my not having been an adult at that time make neither of us able to do anymore than present our impressions of who he was. And no more.

**djdez** · 06-07-2004, 12:30 PM

my $.02

Reagan did nothing about AIDS until it spread widely among hemophiliacs and straight people. Ryan White contracted AIDS in 1984. I'm sorry - but saying AIDS 5 times in a SOU address 2 years after the epidemic came into light several years prior does not make you an advocate for AIDS. It proves your ignorance and bigotry. Where was Reagan's compassion then?

That's why Ryan White had a hard time going back to public school. He was called Fag and was told he deserved to die because people believed it was a gay disease. Sure, tons of money into research would have been nice. But where Reagan fell dramatically short was the education and prevention of HIV/AIDS. I do believe he was content that people considered the virus to be gay cancer and as long as too many 'innocent' (no-gay) people didn't contract it, they were basically casualties of war as god let loose his wrath on the fags.

I will give Reagan is foriegn policy. The man did great things around the world for democracy. Noone can take that away. That is how he will always be remembered by the large population. How he wanted to be remembered is someone that "tried and did his best." Despite my reluctance, I will give him that too.

Jasun · 06-07-2004, 12:41 PM

I was gonna put together one of my meticulously worded posts on this subject once I got all my thougts together... but here's a link which pretty much sums up what many of us thought about Reagan.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0

**dirtygeek** · 06-07-2004, 01:05 PM

You know, I don't have to like someone's actions to feel bad that they have passed away. No matter where their soul goes, if they have one.

Life is a precious thing, no matter what someone does with it. I honestly do not remember much about his terms in office. I was too young. (I think I was like 6-7 when he was in office.)

**Huskyhunks** · 06-07-2004, 01:08 PM

Jasun, I couldn't get to the link, would like to read it. BDBionic, you speak of the gay community and you were 8 years old when Reagan was sworn in. You're assessment of Reagan is based on someone else's opinion and your own pre pubescent view of the world at the time.

Ronald Reagan had no compassion. Wow, he mentioned aids in his speech. So what. He never went to an aids hospice and dealt with the real life difficulties surrounding this disease. He didn't fight for aids patients to keep their insurance. He didn't fight for aids patience to be treated in a dignified manner. He destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of farmers. He created a whole new social strata of homeless people throughout the country with his failed trickle down economic policy.

Where is the compassion ? And, you have to audacity to point the finger at the gay community. Most of these men got infected in the late seventees. I'm not here to win an argument. I just couldn't believe what I was reading when I read your assessment of Ronald Reagan. As it turns out, you're assessment is based on other people perceptions and if you want to hold on to that, go right ahead.

**Lee** · 06-07-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by djdez
I will give Reagan is foriegn policy. The man did great things around the world for democracy. Noone can take that away. That is how he will always be remembered by the large population. How he wanted to be remembered is someone that "tried and did his best." Despite my reluctance, I will give him that too.

Indeed the collapse of the Berlin Wall im sure we would agree was a good thing and it definately strengthened the US' European presence.

Regards,

Lee

Xstr8guy · 06-07-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Jasun
I was gonna put together one of my meticulously worded posts on this subject once I got all my thougts together... but here's a link which pretty much sums up what many of us thought about Reagan.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336&row=0

Wow! I thought I was harsh. Thanks for the link Jasun.

Xstr8guy · 06-07-2004, 01:14 PM

I don't think we can give Reagan credit for the end of the Cold War. Communism impolded on it's own... don't ya think? Reagan did all he could to keep the Cold War fantasy alive, but regardless of his efforts, it would have failed anyway.

**shelmal** · 06-07-2004, 01:30 PM

Jasun thanks for the great link. I was reading this thinking, there are many reasons to despise this man other then his treatment of gay poeple. Heres another reason. He was an informer:
1947 -The Senate's 'House of Un-American Activities Committee' (HUAAC) investigated communist infiltration in all walks of life, especially Hollywood. Many actors were 'blacklisted', making it almost impossible for them to find work. They were informed upon by other actors (among them future president Ronald Reagan) who were keen to make sure that they were not accused of being a communist.

desslock · 06-07-2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by BDBionic
[B]It very well may be the case that he was despised by the gay community in the 1980s and that there was little tangible evidence of a concerted effort - or even caring - on his part to mobilize the federal government to confront the AIDS epidemic. But logic dictates that does not translate in to irrefutable evidence that he despised gays and maliciously encouraged the spread of the virus.{/B}

I think that more or less the same people who hated him then, still hate him now.

You know - a lot of people - including Reagan Administration folks who were around in 1985 - have learned a lot and modified their opinions about gays and homosexuality. Everyone has.

LOTS has chnged for us for the better. The general knowledge and awaremenss of gay people is much more mature then in 1985.

It's interesting that people in the gay community have not changed their opinions at all. Holding grudges for 20+ years is silly.

Steve

PS: Gay revisionism has always been alive and well regardng Reagan. It is routinely omitted that Reagan came out publically against the Briggs Initiative in 1978, which was California's first public referendum on gay tolerence. If you watch "The Life & Times of Harvey Milk" for example... Anyhoo --- good rule in life - don't hold grudges.

**shelmal** · 06-07-2004, 02:09 PM

It's interesting that people in the gay community have not changed their opinions at all. Holding grudges for 20+ years is silly.

Yeah silly silly people who lost loved ones and friends durring that time. Who lived in fear because they didn't know if they were next. How dare you hold a silly grudge.

BDBionic · 06-07-2004, 02:22 PM

Again, HuskyHunks, with the ad hominen. Seriously now, is it all you can do to fall back on the argument that because of age, it's simply impossible for a young person to have an informed, unbiased and thorough opinion of the man?

Don't try and substitute the circumstantial ad hominem for any real argument. It's a cheap and useless logical fallacy used to try and avoid making any real points. You'll sit there and not argue the points themselves but try and define the argument in a context that leaves no other alternative but for you to be right.

Does my having been an elementary school student at the time change the fact that 6 billion dollars were spent by the federal government expressly for AIDS research while he was president? Does it change the fact that Reagan did in fact mention AIDS publicly on numerous occasions? I didn't try and say that talking about AIDS in the State of the Union address automatically meant compassion. I brought it up to refute the commonly held assertion that he never once throughout his presidency uttered the world "AIDS". And you and I both know just how commonly held a belief that is among a great many people when in fact it's not the least bit true.

You wave the banner of early-80's adulthood as proof in and of itself that your argument is the only valid one and yet you choose to wholly ignore the context of the times you lay claim to as validation of your points.

90% of America had a view towards AIDS that Reagan had - caught off guard, not fully understanding of, not familiar with, believing a cure would be found soon, believing it wasn't a threat to the entire population.
The reality of presidential action within the political system and with political concerns in mind has to be considered whenever you look at anything a president does. Do we condemn Bill Clinton for promised he didn't keep in the fight against HIV and AIDS? We we assail him for his missteps? When he signed in to law a bill that would discharge asymptomatic HIV+ military personnel? What about when he forced Jocelyn Elders to resign in the face of political pressure? Or scrapped his promised needle-sharing initiative? Eliminated mandatory AIDS education programs for federal employees?
Politics. When, in the mid to late 90's with HIV and AIDS understood and a global community mobilized to fight them, we could have a Democratic president bow to conservative political pressure and back away from promised initiatives to combat the spread of AIDS, it's plainly apparent that it's politics and the context of the times needs to be considered whenever you look back on these things. You're living in a dreamworld if you think presidential policies were carried out to spite you personally.

Desslock mentioned the Briggs Initiative. It seems odd that a man with a deep-seeded, personal loathing of homosexuals would publicly oppose - in the 70s no less and while fashioning himself the champion of modern conservatives - an effort to ban them from public classrooms.

Did Reagan wipe out the AIDS virus as president? Of course not. But nor did he go about spreading it. 20 years of hindsight backed by seething and festering animosity against him make it far too easy to pin blame on him for the AIDS epidemic. Not to sound harsh but friends and loved ones who died of AIDS in the early 80s would have died had there been no action from the federal government or had it pumped a hundred billion dollars in to the fight. And it wasn't Ronald Reagan who kept Ryan White out of school. It was fear, misunderstanding, anxiety and ignorance about AIDS that did. We sit here in 2004 without a cure and yet assign Reagan the burden that he should have created on in 1981.

For every statistic someone points to as evidence of his callousness towards AIDS patients, I can point to another that's testament to a concerted effort to combat the epidemic. Again, it's how we interpret things and the impressions we have of them.