IGF CultureWatch

For gay Americans, any evaluation of Ronald Reagan's legacy begins and ends with his record on AIDS. According to the conventional view, Reagan was responsible for the deaths of thousands of gay men.

On the official day of national mourning for Reagan, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) closed its office to mourn those who have died of AIDS. NGLTF's executive director, Matt Foreman, issued an open letter blasting Reagan for "years of White House silence and inaction." Eric Rofes, a gay author, complained that Reagan "said nothing and did nothing" about AIDS.

But Foreman and some other critics have gone even further, suggesting that criminal malevolence and anti-gay bigotry drove Reagan administration policies on AIDS. "I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude," Foreman wrote in his open letter. "No, ... we knew then it was deliberate."

According to Wayne Besen, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, "we were considered expendable and forsaken by the President." Larry Kramer wrote in The Advocate that Reagan was a "murderer," worse even than Adolf Hitler.

Though exaggerated and somewhat misplaced, the negligence theory is arguable. The malice theory is a calumny.

First, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "said nothing" in response to the disease. In June 1983, a year before the virus that causes AIDS had even been publicly identified, Reagan's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, announced at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the department "considers AIDS its number-one health priority." She specifically praised "the excellent work done by gay networks around the nation" that had spread information about the disease.

Despite the oft-repeated claim that Reagan himself didn't mention AIDS publicly until 1987, he actually first discussed it at a press conference in September 1985. Responding to a reporter's question about the need for more funding, Reagan accurately noted that the federal government had already spent more than half a billion dollars on AIDS up to that point. "So, this is a top priority with us," said Reagan. "Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."

Still, Reagan could have said more. He could have offered sympathy for the dying. He could have inveighed against discrimination. He could have urged prevention education. A master at using the bully pulpit for causes he believed in, Reagan manifestly failed to use it on the subject of AIDS.

In this, it must be noted, he was hardly alone. Most politicians of the age either failed to grasp the seriousness of AIDS or, grasping it, were reluctant to discuss openly a disease spread primarily through anal sex and dirty needles. For years, New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat presiding over the epicenter of the disease, refused even to meet with AIDS groups. AIDS was not mentioned from the podium of either national party convention in 1984. "Silence" about AIDS was a national failing, not one peculiar to Reagan.

Second, it's untrue that the Reagan administration "did nothing" in response to the disease. Deroy Murdock, a gay-friendly conservative columnist, has reviewed federal spending on AIDS programs during the Reagan years. According to Murdock, annual spending rose from eight million dollars in 1982 to more than $2.3 billion in 1989. In all, the federal government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during Reagan's tenure.

It's true that Congress repeatedly added to low-ball Reagan budget requests for AIDS. But that is a familiar dynamic between any White House and any Congress: the White House proposes minimal funding for a program knowing that Congress will add to any proposal. In the 1990's, for example, the Republican Congress added to Bill Clinton's budget requests for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

Reagan's stinginess on AIDS funding, if that's what it was, was not due to anti-gay malevolence but was an extension of his stinginess on funding other domestic programs.

In this, too, Reagan was not alone. In his book And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that in 1983 New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a hero to liberals, nixed (on fiscal grounds) the Republican-dominated state senate's bid to spend $5.2 million on AIDS research and prevention programs. Cuomo's state health commissioner responded to criticism by saying that hypertension was a more important health issue for the state.

Yes, we could have spent more, but that can always be said of federal spending. And it's unclear that additional funding would have accomplished much. "You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole," says Michael Fumento, an author specializing in health and science issues. We simply didn't know enough about the disease early on to spend huge sums wisely.

Gay journalist Bob Roehr, who has closely followed AIDS developments for 20 years, concurs. "I have little reason to believe that a different course of action by Reagan would have significantly altered the scientific state of knowledge" toward a "cure" or vaccine, he says.

Aside from spending, it was Reagan's surgeon general who sent the first-ever bulletin to all American homes warning explicitly about AIDS transmission. Reagan created the first presidential commission dealing with AIDS. And, in 1988, Reagan barred discrimination against federal employees with HIV.

As for Reagan being a murderer, we should remember that he didn't give anybody AIDS. We ourselves bear the lion's share of responsibility for that.

First published on June 23, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

Over the 35 years since the Stonewall events gave a welcome boost to earlier gay activism, we have seen a number of innovations in activist techniques, visibility models and message communication.

In the early years, there were "zaps" of homophobic politicians, media outlets and anti-gay businesses. The AIDS epidemic brought ACT-UP demonstrations with their careful attention to maximizing media exposure, catchy slogans and innovative physical actions like "die ins." Gay marriage brought lines of gay and lesbian couples dressed up and waiting in line for a marriage license, all the more effective a demonstration for not being intended as one.

All during this time there have been annual gay parades under their various names. But have the parades managed any real innovations? Not noticeably. They are larger - huge in some cities - more politicians attend and more businesses participate. But the point seems to have disappeared.

In the early years, parades emphasized coming out. Then there was an emphasis on civil rights laws or AIDS. But the parades don't seem to have a message any more unless it is "We're on display and isn't that fun?" It is just a gay visibility parade. It's the one day in the year the media pay attention to our lives and our movement, and we utterly fail to use it.

The international pride parade group InterPride suggestions for 2004 ran the gamut from bland to witless. The primary theme is "Vive La Difference" with alternate themes of "Stand Out, Stand Proud" or "Living the Rainbow." Who are the drooling idiots who came up with those?

We are threatened by a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage but all InterPride can suggest is "Vive La Difference"? What difference? That heterosexuals can marry and gays cannot? Most states do not have gay civil rights laws but InterPride suggests "Living the Rainbow"? Well, you had better do it in the closet or you might get fired. "Stand up, Stand Proud"? Well, you had better not in the U.S. military.

To be sure, InterPride picks themes that will fit everywhere in the world. But that is exactly the problem. Gay movements in various states and countries are at different stages of development and have different priorities. A theme that fits everywhere sends no pointed message anywhere. Local pride organizers should choose, as smart ones already do, locally relevant themes that parade contingents can use in floats and signs - themes like "Marriage Now" or "Fight the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Then think about the political and health activist groups who carry signs along the parade route so spectators see them. But spectators probably already know their goals and agree with them. It is the politicians and government officials attending the parade who should see the signs. But if they are in the parade, too, they don't see them.

It would be more useful for the spectators to hold up signs as the politicians and political candidates drive past: "Gay Marriage," "Support Gay Civil Rights," "Military Access Now." Let the politicians know what you as gay and lesbian spectators want them to do. You are their boss. Never forget that.

It is also time to stop being nice to politicians who claim to be pro-gay but do little on our behalf. For instance, Illinois Democrats long promised that when they controlled the governor's office and the legislature they would pass a gay civil rights bill. Well, they do now and they didn't. And none of them has breathed a word about repealing the state's gay marriage ban.

So it is time to stop cheering politicians for merely turning up at our parade - that is a 1970s mentality - and start booing them for playing us for fools. If we cheer them, it only makes them believe they can keep on getting away with merely verbal support. Remember: they have an incentive not to pass pro-gay laws, because once they do, then they have nothing left to keep promising us to get our votes.

But what if some ostensibly pro-gay but non-producing politician - such as Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich - fails to turn up at the parade and take their lumps like adults? We can do what political candidates do when opponents don't attend a debate. They set out an empty chair with his name on it. So someone should be ready to chauffeur an otherwise empty convertible with a sign on it reading "Where Is ____?" to draw attention to his absence. It is time to play hardball with these knaves.

And last, since we have all seen too many unadorned beer trucks and company vans in the parade, would it be too much for our unimaginative parade committees to make a rule that parade entries have to have some gay content or theme or decoration in order to participate?

And, oh yes, if you are thinking of cheering the inevitable contingent of "Kerry for President" enthusiasts, remember that Sen. Kerry supports a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. I just thought I'd mention it.

Have a happy Pride.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or so it seems as gay-rights opponents, in a desperate last-ditch effort to win their cultural war against homosexuality, trot out arguments that have been discredited for decades.

Many of these focus on the alleged harms of homosexuality. Having failed to make a convincing moral case, gay-rights opponents often shift to claims of "health risks" - including disease, decreased life expectancy, higher suicide rates, and so on.

Such scientific-sounding concerns give these opponents a veneer of objectivity. Indeed, their arguments sound almost compassionate at times. Consider the following question posed by Marquette University professor Christopher Wolfe:

"On the basis of health considerations alone, is it unreasonable to ask if it is better not to be an active homosexual? At the very least, don't the facts suggest that it is desirable to prevent the formation of a homosexual orientation and to bring people out of it when we can?"

The correct answer to Wolfe is, "It depends." For there are three key questions we must first ask:

(1) Are the allegations of harm accurate?

This question seems obvious, but it's crucial. Many of the studies cited by gay-rights opponents are abysmally bad.

Consider the oft-repeated claim that homosexual males face a dramatic decrease in life expectancy. The claim is rooted in the research of psychologist Paul Cameron, who argues that even apart from AIDS, gay men on average die over thirty years sooner than their straight counterparts.

How did he reach this startling conclusion? By comparing obituaries in 16 gay publications with those in two mainstream newspapers.

As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up. Cameron's methodology is laughable even to those with no formal statistical training. Newspaper obituaries are unscientific. Those that appear in gay publications are far more apt to record the deaths of those lost in their prime than of those who died elderly, especially given the target demographic of such publications. There was no control group (after all, gays have obituaries in mainstream publications too). And so on.

It should thus come as no surprise that 1983 Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association for ethical violations. Yet his work continues to get cited by otherwise respectable researchers like Wolfe.

But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, we were to grant the allegations of harm cited by gay-rights opponents. We would still have to ask a second question:

(2) Are the alleged harms caused by homosexuality itself, or some external factor?

In particular, we would have to ask whether many of the alleged harms result from anti-gay sentiment. In that case, there would be a vicious circle: opponents of homosexuality would be basing their opposition on factors caused by that very opposition - a classic case of "blaming the victim."

In some cases these external factors are complex. Gays are, to a considerable extent, a wounded people. Many experience ostracism from their own families during formative years, with deep emotional scars resulting.

To say this is not to say that gay life is miserable or that we should not take responsibility for our own well-being. Rather, it is to remind those who allege various problems in gay life that they may share responsibility for those problems.

But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose - again for the sake of argument - that the alleged problems result from homosexuality itself, rather than social pressure. There is a third question that must be asked:

(3) What follows?

This is the question most people miss. They assume that if a practice is riskier than the alternatives, the practice must be wrong. But that assumption is demonstrably false.

Driving is riskier than walking. Being a coal miner is riskier than being a newspaper columnist. Football is riskier than chess. Yet no one thinks that the former activity in each example is wrong just because of the risks involved.

There are too many holes in the argument that links homosexuality with risk and risk with wrongness. Consider how Wolfe's argument would look if we applied it to football:

"On the basis of health considerations alone, is it unreasonable to ask if it is better not to be [a football player]? At the very least, don't the facts suggest that it is desirable to prevent the formation of [an interest in football] and to bring people out of it when we can?"

After all, there are safer hobbies, like chess!

Well, sure. But football players don't want to play chess; they want to play football. The argument reminds me of an old joke:

Question: What's the best way to avoid spilling your coffee while driving?
Answer: Drink tea.

Gays, like everyone else, can take steps to minimize risks in their lives. They can start by confronting the pseudo-science and invalid inferences of their opponents.