I think it's clear that Reagan's response to AIDS was tepid at best, and probably grossly negligent or even worse; people can argue ad nauseum about the details on this for either side but I think the jury is in with most fair-minded people, and the verdict is clear: Reagan failed BIG TIME on AIDS. I think it's a mistake for those of us who are warm and fuzzy about ol' Dutch (as few as there may be in our midst, that is) to try to dress up a very glaring failure just because it doesn't fit with out general feelings about the man.

However, I think it's a mistake to leap from criticizing Reagan for not doing enough on AIDS to characterizing him as "evil". It's easy to one-dimensionalize and demonize someone with whom we have a particular quarrel, and it might be therapeutic, but it's neither intellectually honest nor helpful; bashing a popular president (and that's an indisputable fact that he was popular, given his landslide electoral victories) will not win us new allies in the continuing struggle against AIDS.

Besides, now is the time to respect our nation by respecting a leader whom many of our fellow citizens admire. I won't argue about who SHOULD get the credit for it, but the fact is Reagan was at the helm at a critical time, and it was on his watch that the Soviet Union -- a state that was hardly kind to our community -- underwent tremendous reform and eventually dissolved altogether (under Bush 41, of course, but really a process that started with Reagan). It was also under his watch that our economy experienced tremendous growth -- bigger than even the good Clinton economical revival -- and our "general malaise" also lifted. In short, he revived America, economically, militarily, and restored pride in America. His failings were stark (race relations, the failed War on Drugs, other aspects of social policy), but I challenge anyone to find the Perfect President.

I say, all in all, not bad -- not bad at all.