by H. W. Brands
“But should that bind the rest of the citizens who may not believe in the Bible?” Scheer asked. “Don’t we have the right to separation of church and state?”
“Oh, we do, yes we do,” Reagan affirmed. But he added, “Look, what other group of people demands the same thing? Let’s say here is the total libertarian—or libertine, I should say—who wants the right to just free and open sex.”
Scheer expressed puzzlement that self-proclaimed conservatives should want government to intrude in the private lives of consenting adults.
Reagan clearly didn’t like the path he was going down. “No one is advocating the invasion of the private life of any individual,” he said. “I think Pat Campbell said it best in the trial of Oscar Wilde. She said, ‘I have no objection to anyone’s sex life so long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses.’ ”
Reagan spoke little more about gay rights after he secured the nomination and then the election. He quietly allowed money for AIDS research to be included in the federal budget, but he let others in the administration do what little talking executive branch officials did on the subject. He maintained presidential silence on AIDS throughout his first term, even as the death toll mounted into the many thousands.
But eventually reporters flushed him out. “Mr. President,” one asked at a news conference in September 1985, “the nation’s best-known AIDS scientist says the time has come now to boost existing research into what he called a minor moon shot program to attack this AIDS epidemic that has struck fear into the nation’s health workers and even its schoolchildren. Would you support a massive government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?”
“I have been supporting it for more than four years now,” Reagan answered. “It’s been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last four years, and including 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.”
The reporter was skeptical. “The scientist who talked about this, who does work for the government, is in the National Cancer Institute,” he said. “He was referring to your program and the increase that you proposed as being not nearly enough at this stage to go forward and really attack the problem.”
Reagan defended his policy. “I think with our budgetary constraints and all, it seems to me that $126 million in a single year for research has got to be something of a vital contribution.”
Several months later, when Reagan sent his budget to Congress, it included AIDS research as a “high priority” program. On the same day he declared, in remarks to the employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to continue to be finding a cure for AIDS. We’re going to continue to try to develop and test vaccines, and we’re going to focus also on prevention.”
In the spring of 1987 Reagan announced the creation of a special commission to study AIDS and seek a cure. “AIDS is clearly one of the most serious health problems facing the world community, and our health care establishment is working overtime to find a cure,” he said. “The commission will help us to ensure that we are using every possible public health measure to contain the spread of the virus.”
That May he gave his first important address on AIDS. The American Foundation for AIDS Research held a fund-raiser in Washington and invited Reagan to speak. If the audience expected him to be tentative or uncomfortable, they soon discovered their mistake. “Fundraisers always remind me of one of my favorite but most well-worn stories,” he began. “I’ve been telling it for years, so if you’ve heard it, please indulge me. A man had just been elected chairman of his community’s annual charity drive. And he went over all the records, and he noticed something about one individual in town, a very wealthy man. And so, he paid a call on him, introduced himself as to what he was doing, and he said, ‘Our records show that you have never contributed anything to our charity.’ And the man said, ‘Well, do your records show that I also have a brother who, as the result of a disabling accident, is permanently disabled and cannot provide for himself? Do your records show that I have an invalid mother and a widowed sister with several small children and no father to support them?’ And the chairman, a little abashed and embarrassed, said, ‘Well, no, our records don’t show that.’ The man said, ‘Well, I don’t give anything to them. Why should I give something to you?’ ”
Some in the audience laughed; others thought the parallel between the miserly rich man and Reagan’s AIDS policy too close to be funny. Reagan turned serious. “I want to talk tonight about the disease that has brought us all together,” he said. “It has been talked about, and I’m going to continue. The poet W. H. Auden said that true men of action in our times are not the politicians and statesmen but the scientists. I believe that’s especially true when it comes to the AIDS epidemic. Those of us in government can educate our citizens about the dangers. We can encourage safe behavior. We can test to determine how widespread the virus is. We can do any number of things. But only medical science can ever truly defeat AIDS.” Reagan noted the progress that had been made so far. “To think we didn’t even know we had a disease until June of 1981, when five cases appeared in California. The AIDS virus itself was discovered in 1984. The blood test became available in 1985. A treatment drug, AZT, has been brought to market in record time, and others are coming. Work on a vaccine is now underway in many laboratories.” He explained that the federal government continued to expand its budget for AIDS research. “Spending on AIDS has been one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, and, ladies and gentlemen, it deserves to be.” Washington was also removing regulatory barriers to bringing new drugs to market. “I don’t blame those who are out marching and protesting to get AIDS drugs released before the t’s were crossed and the i’s were dotted. I sympathize with them, and we’ll supply help and hope as quickly as we can.”
A vaccine was the ultimate goal of AIDS research. But because the virus had a lengthy incubation period, developing and testing a vaccine took time. “We will not have a vaccine on the market until the mid- to late 1990s, at best,” Reagan said. In the meantime the country had some important questions to answer. “How do we protect the citizens of this nation, and where do we start?” Information was crucial. “I recently announced my intention to create a national commission on AIDS because of the consequences of this disease on our society. We need some comprehensive answers. What can we do to defend Americans not infected with the virus? How can we best care for those who are ill and dying? How do we deal with a disease that may swamp our health care system?” The commission would hear expert testimony and make the appropriate recommendations.
Reagan rejected the notion that AIDS was a gay disease. “I don’t want Americans to think AIDS simply affects only certain groups. AIDS affects all of us. What our citizens must know is this: America faces a disease that is fatal and spreading. And this calls for urgency, not panic. It calls for compassion, not blame. And it calls for understanding, not ignorance.” He similarly rejected the moralistic finger-pointing that had characterized too much of the discussion of the disease. “Final judgment is up to God; our part is to ease the suffering and to find a cure. This is a battle against disease, not against our fellow Americans. We mustn’t allow those with the AIDS virus to suffer discrimination.”
Reagan observed that many fears surrounding AIDS were unjustified by the facts. “These fears are based on ignorance. I was told of a newspaper photo of a baby in a hospital crib with a sign that said, ‘AIDS—Do Not Touch.’ Fortunately, that photo was taken several years ago, and we now know there’s no basis for this kind of fear. But similar incidents are still happening elsewhe
re in this country. I read of one man with AIDS who returned to work to find anonymous notes on his desk with such messages as, ‘Don’t use our water fountain.’ I was told of a situation in Florida where three young brothers—ages ten, nine, and seven—were all hemophiliacs carrying the AIDS virus. The pastor asked the entire family not to come back to their church. Ladies and gentlemen, this is old-fashioned fear, and it has no place in the ‘home of the brave.’ ”
Reagan called for informed tolerance. “The Public Health Service has stated that there’s no medical reason for barring a person with the virus from any routine school or work activity. There’s no reason for those who carry the AIDS virus to wear a scarlet A. AIDS is not a casually contagious disease. We’re still learning about how AIDS is transmitted, but experts tell us you don’t get it from telephones or swimming pools or drinking fountains. You don’t get it from shaking hands or sitting on a bus or anywhere else, for that matter. And most important, you don’t get AIDS by donating blood.”
Yet behavior did matter. Reagan might eschew moralism, but he embraced moral values, in particular the value of personal responsibility. In the absence of a vaccine or a cure, the sole way to slow the spread of AIDS was to change the behavior of those infected and those at risk. “As individuals, we have a moral obligation not to endanger others, and that can mean endangering others with a gun, with a car, or with a virus. If a person has reason to believe that he or she may be a carrier, that person has a moral duty to be tested for AIDS; human decency requires it. And the reason is very simple: Innocent people are being infected by this virus, and some of them are going to acquire AIDS and die.” Reagan characteristically employed an example to make his point. “A doctor in a rural county in Kentucky treated a woman who caught the AIDS virus from her husband, who was an IV-drug user. They later got divorced, neither knowing that they were infected. They remarried other people, and now one of them has already transmitted the disease to her new husband. Just as most individuals don’t know they carry the virus, no one knows to what extent the virus has infected our entire society. AIDS is surreptitiously spreading throughout our population, and yet we have no accurate measure of its scope. It’s time we knew exactly what we were facing, and that’s why I support some routine testing.” Reagan added that he had instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to assess the current incidence of AIDS and project its future. “I’ve also asked HHS to add the AIDS virus to the list of contagious diseases for which immigrants and aliens seeking permanent residence in the United States can be denied entry.”
Some members of the audience didn’t like these last comments, about routine testing for the AIDS virus and barring infected immigrants. They booed the president, tentatively at first, then more loudly.
Reagan continued undaunted. He pointed out that potential immigrants were currently denied entry for exhibiting other contagious diseases, many much less deadly than AIDS. “I’ve asked the Department of Justice to plan for testing all federal prisoners, as looking into ways to protect uninfected inmates and their families. In addition, I’ve asked for a review of other federal responsibilities, such as veterans hospitals, to see if testing might be appropriate in those areas. This is in addition to the testing already underway in our military and foreign service.”
“No! No!” shouted a sizable minority of the audience.
Reagan spoke through the shouts. The states had their own responsibilities, he said. “While recognizing the individual’s choice, I encourage states to offer routine testing for those who seek marriage licenses and for those who visit sexually transmitted disease or drug abuse clinics. And I encourage states to require routine testing in state and local prisons. Not only will testing give us more information on which to make decisions, but in the case of marriage licenses, it might prevent at least some babies from being born with AIDS. And anyone who knows how viciously AIDS attacks the body cannot object to this humane consideration. I should think that everyone getting married would want to be tested.”
Many in the audience were still upset as Reagan approached the end. “You know, it’s been said that when the night is darkest, we see the stars. And there have been some shining moments throughout this horrible AIDS epidemic.” He described the dedication of volunteers who cared for AIDS patients, noting especially the work of one San Francisco group that provided over 100,000 hours of support for the city’s AIDS sufferers. “That kind of compassion has been duplicated all over the country, and it symbolizes the best tradition of caring. And I encourage Americans to follow that example and volunteer to help their fellow citizens who have AIDS.” He quoted a young man in the terminal stages of the disease: “While I do accept death, I think the fight for life is important, and I’m going to fight the disease with every breath I have.” Reagan paused, then concluded, “Ladies and gentlemen, so must we.”
REACTIONS TO REAGAN’S speech varied dramatically. Activists already condemning the administration for tardy and feeble funding of AIDS research accused him of wanting to add to the victims’ burden. “I am outraged and depressed,” said Ben Schatz, a lawyer with the National Gay Rights Advocates. Reagan’s call for routine testing, while less threatening than the mandatory testing many conservatives were urging, put the country on a dangerous path, Schatz predicted. “All those who test positive are going to get their insurance canceled and go on Medicaid, possibly lose their jobs, their apartments. We’ve already been through a lot of that in the gay community.”
An international AIDS expert who wouldn’t let his name be printed pronounced Reagan’s speech more of what the country and the world had come to expect of an ignorant and uncaring president. “From the beginning this administration has played with AIDS like a bunch of amateurs,” he said. “They haven’t listened to the health care experts. There’s no national AIDS or education program. They can’t even talk about sex.” Politics, not public health, motivated the president. “The administration’s realization that they have to do something comes when elections are around the corner, not when people are dying.”
Conservatives assailed Reagan from the opposite direction. “Routine testing is a cop out,” said Republican congressman William Dannemeyer. “It’s another illustration of treating the issue as a civil rights issue instead of a public health issue.” Reagan had been unspecific about the nature of appropriate public education on AIDS, but Dannemeyer warned him against anything that made homosexuality seem normal. Children and the public should be taught to shun the practices that had brought this plague upon the country in the first place. “We should reaffirm the heterosexual ethic of our society and we should tell them that the homosexual life style is a very unhealthy life style.”
The director of continuing education for the California Medical Association thought Reagan had done fairly well. “I would have liked for him to say a great deal more,” Mark Madsen remarked. “But I appreciate him coming out and talking about it. Considering this was his first major talk on AIDS, I’d give him a B+ for the effort.”
Reagan was an easier grader, as usual, when evaluating himself. “Well received until I mentioned routine testing for AIDS,” he wrote in his diary. “A block of the gay community in the tent booed me enthusiastically. All in all, though, I was pleased with the whole affair.”
101
PRESIDENTS COME AND go, but Supreme Court justices abide. John Adams’s presidency was forgettable, but the accomplishments of John Marshall, whom Adams appointed chief justice, were indelible. The supporters and enemies of Andrew Jackson watched their hero and bête noire leave the White House in 1837, but they dealt with Roger B. Taney, Jackson’s pick to succeed Marshall, until 1864. William O. Douglas was still annoying conservatives thirty years after his sponsor, Franklin Roosevelt, exited office and life.
Reagan had three chances to fill Supreme Court seats. The first two went smoothly, so smoothly that neither Sandra Day O’Connor nor Antonin Scalia suffered a single nay in confirmation votes in the Senate. O’Connor’
s invulnerability rested on her distinction as the first woman to be nominated to the high court. Reagan realized liberals would be hard-pressed to vote against such a pioneer of women’s equality, and none did. Scalia represented a different calculation. Combatively conservative, he was also irrepressibly charming. And he replaced the conservative William Rehnquist, whom Reagan promoted to chief justice upon the retirement of fellow conservative Warren Burger. As a result, Scalia’s appointment presaged no swing in the court’s philosophical balance. Timing benefited the Scalia appointment as well. In the summer of 1986, Reagan’s reelection landslide still daunted the Democrats; few Democratic senators saw advantage in taking on the president over a Supreme Court seat.
Robert Bork’s nomination was a different story. The retirement of the moderate Lewis Powell had been expected, and conservatives hoped Reagan would shift the court to the right with Powell’s replacement. For decades conservatives had complained about judicial activism, accusing justices of creating law rather than merely interpreting it. Reagan had joined their complaints and now gave the conservatives what they wanted. “Judge Bork, widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint, shares my view that judges’ personal preferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations,” Reagan declared in announcing the nomination on July 1, 1987. “The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them.” Judge Bork would help the high court regain the balance it had lost. “We’re fortunate to be able to draw upon such an impressive legal mind, an experienced judge and a man who already has devoted so much of his life to public service. He’ll bring credit to the court and his colleagues, as well as to his country and the Constitution.”