WI: Reagan Tackled AIDS earlier?

[John Fredrick Parker]

One of the big criticisms of the Reagan administration was its handling of the outbreak of AIDS. The President didn't even mention the disease in a speech until May 31, 1987, and not until October that he mentioned it in a policy address. By then, his presidency was largely over.

Much earlier, on July 25, 1985, film star and family friend Rock Hudson let the world know of his fight with AIDS. President Reagan called to offer his condolences.

What if Reagan followed up this call in, say August, to make a major speech on the epidemic? Say he keeps it on the agenda through the year, and includes it in his 1986 SOTU Address.

First, how much more is done on AIDS? Second, how does this affect communities affected by AIDS in OTL (the gay community, etc)?

Third, how does this affect his second term -- does this, for example create tension with figures in his administration, AG Meese, or affect who Reagan nominates for the SC? Fourth, how does this affect conservatism in America?

 

[Wolfpaw]

If Reagan (presumably after a HUGE personality shift) decides to tackle AIDS (or even address it), it's going to alienate the hell out of the Christian Right, which was a massive constituency of his. And yes, there are going to be big issues amongst administration folk like Meese and his ilk, though I don't see it necessarily affecting O'Connor or Bork's nominations.

The plus side is that Reagan actually trying to do something about AIDS could greatly help the Gay Rights Movement since now they're sort of "fellow Americans" as opposed to, well...faggots. And as we all know, "faggots" and "queers" and the like were considered antithetical to the '80s zeitgeist (along with other minorities, obviously, but especially gays). So, yeah, tackling AIDS early on could certainly help decrease the stigma of homosexuality years (if not decades) earlier. With regards to AIDS research, I don't know how much progress can really be made.

Conservatism is going to be utterly rejective of this, or at least try its hardest to ignore the homosexual side of it. By Reagan's second term, the Republican's social platform has been pretty much co-opted by the Christian Right.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Maybe I should have done this as a plausibility check?

though I don't see it necessarily affecting O'Connor or Bork's nominations

Well, I wouldn't expect it to affect O'Connor's nomination, seeing as she was already on the court

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Nobody has any more thoughts

 

[Wendell]

I think that this may be workable, although the political consequences would be interesting.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think that this may be workable, although the political consequences would be interesting.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Whanztastic]

It would have to hit another demographic other than homosexuals earlier thus loosing that 'negative' association earlier. Also, some children of politicians getting infected would probably hit home in Washington. Being personally affected is usually a strong catalyst for change. Not that I am wishing AIDs on anyone.

 

[Atreus]

Can you elaborate?

For a long time AIDS was viewed as a disease that homosexuals and others outside the mainstream of society (heroin users, say). A lot of the reason that much of the public was oblivious to AIDS was that nobody really cared about this mysterious new disease that was killing off homosexuals.

So now you have a pretty conservative republican president coming out and making tackling this disease a major policy plank. that's all well and good, but there are going to be some pretty major repercussions from this. Does this lead homosexuals to support the GOP in large numbers because of this? how do the religious right and other social conservatives react? What does this do to the perceptions of AIDS, both in the US and abroad? How much does this advance (or delay) social causes related to LGBT community?

 

[proximefactum]

For a long time AIDS was viewed as a disease that homosexuals and others outside the mainstream of society (heroin users, say). A lot of the reason that much of the public was oblivious to AIDS was that nobody really cared about this mysterious new disease that was killing off homosexuals.

As with many epidemics, people were often ignorant of the transmission mode. I distinctly remember people freaking out over the possibility that HIV could be transmitted by mosquito bites.

I always considered the struggle and death (1990) of Ryan White as the turning point of HIV/AIDS consciousness in the USA. The death of a young man from a tainted blood transfusion "mainstreamed" HIV awareness at the expense of those "outside the mainstream of society" as you say. Certainly it's unfortunate that gay people had to bear the brunt of scorn. Yet, the HIV/AIDS crisis in the gay community was integral to the prominence of gay people today.

So now you have a pretty conservative republican president coming out and making tackling this disease a major policy plank. that's all well and good, but there are going to be some pretty major repercussions from this. Does this lead homosexuals to support the GOP in large numbers because of this? how do the religious right and other social conservatives react? What does this do to the perceptions of AIDS, both in the US and abroad? How much does this advance (or delay) social causes related to LGBT community?

Ronald Reagan wasn't a hardcore religious rightist in the mold of Bush II. Quite the contrary. Reagan wasn't an avid churchgoer. Although he kept up an observant Christian facade, his personal convictions were questionable at best. The advent of the Moral Majority might have factored into Reagan's response to HIV/AIDS. Yet I would say that the marginalization of gay people combined with general ignorance about the epidemic fueled Reagan's slow response. I doubt that gay people would support the GOP given that the Democratic Party had initiated a shift to a socially liberal platform in the mid 70's.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This is all pretty good so far; thanks to all for the posts

So now you have a pretty conservative republican president coming out and making tackling this disease a major policy plank. that's all well and good, but there are going to be some pretty major repercussions from this. Does this lead homosexuals to support the GOP in large numbers because of this? how do the religious right and other social conservatives react? What does this do to the perceptions of AIDS, both in the US and abroad? How much does this advance (or delay) social causes related to LGBT community?

I would say that the marginalization of gay people combined with general ignorance about the epidemic fueled Reagan's slow response. I doubt that gay people would support the GOP given that the Democratic Party had initiated a shift to a socially liberal platform in the mid 70's.

OTOH, if the Republicans and the Moral Majority have a falling out, this could count for less as things like gay rights find bipartisan consensus. I'm thinking we'll probably have the gay ban in the military lifted full stop within a decade of the PoD, and see a butterfly effect on Bowers v Hardwick*. From there, we could be looking at more movement on civil partnership legislation turning into civil union legislation, by 2000 resulting in a number of states with same sex marriage (and, quite possibly, no DOMA, meaning they'd come with Federal benefits).

One interesting detail to all this is that, OTL, one Andrew Sullivan, a Tory UK citizen, was just getting his start in America (moved to DC 1984, took over The New Republic 1986). Be interesting to see if he can acquire more influence ITTL... **

*it was 5-4 OTL, so you only need one justice, say Powell or O'Connor to change their mind

**thoughtful look

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

No other thoughts?

 

[The Kiat]

Many people considered those who caught HIV as undesirable to begin with (especially the needle users). But nobody seemed to ask what if one of those "undesirables" donated blood. If the virus hit the mainstream earlier, then the Reagan Administration might have acted.

 

[proximefactum]

OTOH, if the Republicans and the Moral Majority have a falling out, this could count for less as things like gay rights find bipartisan consensus. I'm thinking we'll probably have the gay ban in the military lifted full stop within a decade of the PoD, and see a butterfly effect on Bowers v Hardwick*. From there, we could be looking at more movement on civil partnership legislation turning into civil union legislation, by 2000 resulting in a number of states with same sex marriage (and, quite possibly, no DOMA, meaning they'd come with Federal benefits).

The marriage between the Religious Right [RR] and the GOP was in the making for at least fifteen years before the end of Reagan's first term. I personally date the begining of the RR and GOP relationship to Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Catholic Church merged with the RR/GOP in the mid 70's over abortion. It's fair to say that by the early 80's the divisions we now see in Congress were setting quickly (save that there were more fiscal conservative/social moderate Republicans in the 80's.) It would be somewhat difficult to separate the RR and the GOP in the early 80's but much easier than today.

That's a bit OT. Anyway, I doubt a Bowers-like SCOTUS decision would have happened after a repeal of the military's ban on LGBT servicepeople. Despite living in a post-Bowers era OTL the nation still struggles with a civilian population that supports a DADT repeal and a military brass that's largely opposed to the repeal. You are right that a weakened RR/GOP alliance might accelerate gay rights. Conservative churches could not funnel money into anti-gay measures without RR political assistance. In turn, ballot initiatives might pass more quickly. But as I have said, a divorce of the RR and the GOP would be difficult even by 1985 or 1988. I doubt that an ATL timeline would differ significantly from gay rights OTL.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It's fair to say that by the early 80's the divisions we now see in Congress were setting quickly (save that there were more fiscal conservative/social moderate Republicans in the 80's.) It would be somewhat difficult to separate the RR and the GOP in the early 80's but much easier than today.

Maybe, but if anyone could pull it off, it would be Ronald Reagan

I personally date the begining of the RR and GOP relationship to Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Well, to an extent, but fiscal conservatives (who have more in common with modern conservatives OTL) weren't necessarily gung ho on Nixon...

 

[Wolfpaw]

Well, to an extent, but fiscal conservatives (who have more in common with modern conservatives OTL) weren't necessarily gung ho on Nixon...

Well, to be fair, nobody was that gung-ho on Nixon. Hell, even Nixon wasn't that gung-ho on Nixon

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, to be fair, nobody was that gung-ho on Nixon. Hell, even Nixon wasn't that gung-ho on Nixon

Fair enough

 

[MerryPrankster]

Increasing the number of people afflicted with AIDS might help make it a bigger deal.

How many AIDS deaths were there before Reagan first "took notice" of AIDS? Was it a very large number?

I know it was initially concentrated in gay men (they first called it GRID, for gay-related) and heroin users. Those aren't very large demographics, I don't think, to say nothing of the general public not caring about them.

Perhaps a lot more cases of tainted blood, or a Ryan White-esque situation a few years earlier?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

How many AIDS deaths were there before Reagan first "took notice" of AIDS? Was it a very large number?

It was. From an oped at SFGate

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States... On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths...Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died..." [By May 31, 1987] 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

 

[MerryPrankster]

How do those numbers stack up with, say, the seasonal flu?

I think the flu kills huge numbers every year, mostly the very old.

There might be more to the story than social disdain for the first victims of AIDS.

 

[Euroman26]

Problem is according to physical conservatism if you choose not protect yourself from something then if you get a negative consequence then its your own fault!