Reagan: The Life (100 page)

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 elsewhere 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.”

R
EACTIONS TO
R
EAGAN
’
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.”

P
RESIDENTS 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.”

Bork wasn’t obviously more conservative than Scalia, but his nomination came at a moment when the Democrats were more effectively combative than they had been in 1986. They now controlled the Senate and with it the all-important Judiciary Committee, which would conduct hearings on the Bork nomination. Democratic hopefuls for the 1988 presidential race were already jockeying for position, with each tempted to outdo the others in attacking the administration. And because Bork would replace a moderate justice, Democrats realized that his seating could reconfigure the balance of power on the court for decades to come.