I talk to a Reagan speechwriter about AIDS policy

[theboss]

So Peter Robinson posted something on National Review's "The Corner" and I wrote him an email.

I said:

I know that in conservative circles, it is important to build Reagan up the hisorical equivalent of George Washington. But to suddenly give him credit for Dr. Koop's work in AIDS education is historical revisionism bordering on lunacy.

Dr. Koop was appointed by Reagan because he was deeply conservative. So when Reagan could no longer ignore AIDS, he threw the political football to Koop.

He naturally expected Koop to write a report that fell in line with Reagan's view of the disease. Instead, Koop came out with his landmark 1986 report. The White House was apopleptic, because Koop was speaking the truth. It tried everything in its power to downplay the report.

Reagan's backers went even more ballistic. Conservatives took away awards they had given Koop over the years. He was viewed as a traitor.

Please read the brilliant "And the Band Played On" for more detail on the political realities of Koops' research.

But then a funny thing happened. Koop became a national celebrity and, yes, a hero. Koop had gone over, around, and through the White House directly to the American people and AIDS was suddenly being treated as a public health issue, not a political issue.

Koop forced Reagan to acknowledge that AIDS was a public health crisis. Reagan never wanted the report published the way it was. He never wanted a government fact sheet going to every taxpayer.

But fifteen years later, even conservatives recognize how wrong this stance is. So they have simply changed it. Reagan gets all the credit for the work he tried to quash. Well done, sir.

[theboss]

1. Then, he said

You're mistaken on nearly every count, but I'll limit myself to one: The White House was not at all "apoplectic" about Koop's work. I know. I was there.

[theboss]

2. So I said . . .

Thank you for responding so quickly. We are both busy men so I will ask three quick questions and wish you well:

1. How do you view this statement from Koop himself when explaining why he was kept out of discussions on AIDS for the first five years of the Reagan administration:

" . . .because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the
homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the
advisors to the President, took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve."

2. Were William Bennet, Gary Bauer, and Pat Buchanan please with the report Dr. Koop released?

3. Why did Reagan wait until 1987 (nearly two years after the death of close friend Rock Hudson) to publicly utter the dread word "AIDS" if the White House was in support of Dr. Koop's report?

"Apolplectic" may have been a strong word, but to an outsider the record would indicate that by 1986, Koop was totally out of White House control and operating in contrast to its wishes.

[theboss]

3. Then he said . . . .

1. How do you view this statement from Koop himself when explaining why he was kept out of discussions on AIDS for the first five years of the Reagan administration:

" . . .because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the
homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the
advisors to the President, took the stand, they are only getting what
they justly deserve."



Koop is flatly mistaken. (From what I can tell, he is a self-important man, given to portraying himself as something of a martyr, as witness his behavior when the medical website with which he was associatedit was called something like DrKoop.com collapsed.) No one in my experience of the Reagan White House ever took the position Koop ascribes to them. Koop often attended meetings of the Domestic Policy Council at which AIDS was discussed—and as a result of which many of his recommendations, including recommendations for funding, were indeed acted upon.




2. Were William Bennet, Gary Bauer, and Pat Buchanan please with the report Dr. Koop released?



Two answers: a) I don't recall talking about the report with any of them, so I can't say, and b) who cares what they thought? None of them was president. Reagan appointed Koop, and Koop issued the report.





3. Why did Reagan wait until 1987 (nearly two years after the death of close friend Rock Hudson) to publicly utter the dread word "AIDS" if the White House was in support of Dr. Koop's report?



Quite where this myth came from I’ve heard it from several sources now—I have absolutely no idea. But a myth is precisely what it is. From the transcript of a press conference on September 17, 1985:



Press conference, September 17, 1985:

Q. Mr. President, 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?

The President. I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 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.



"Apolplectic" may have been a strong word, but to an outsider the record would indicate that by 1986, Koop was totally out of White House control and operating in contrast to its wishes.

Nonsense. Like any appointee, Koop served at the pleasure of the President. Ask Al Haig what happened to people who got “out of White House control.

[theboss]

4. So I said .. . .

I couldn't resist one last question:

If no one ever acted outside the White House's control under Reagan (as you implied with Dr. Koop and exemplified with Al Haig), does that mean that Oliver North was working with Reagan's blessing the entire time?

I bring this up because employees of the executive branch go off the
Reservation frequently. Some are slapped down, like Haig.

Some end up so popular that the president can't fire them without looking Richard Nixon during the Saturday Night Massacre. I believe the current President has found himself in that situation on a number of occassions with Colin Powell, for example. And, I have "friends" at the Pentagon who believe that Rumsfeld was in trouble in the days prior to 9/11 before he became well-known and popular with the public. If you go back to Nixon again, you see that Kissinger was able to survive numerous episodes due to his "celebrity."

I took a quick quiz of several friends all of whom stay informed in
politics. None could name the current surgeon general. None could name Clinton's surgeon general, though they do remember "that woman who talked about masturbation." But all remember Koop. We were all in junior high or high school at the time of the report, and it was literally a world-changing event.

And I simply find it hard to believe that the Reagan White House was pleased that 7th and 8th graders were receiving candid information from the government about anal sex and oral sex. I certainly can't believe that they believed that this sort of education should begin in elementary schools.

Conservatives like Gary Bauer and Bill Bennett tend to shy away from this sort of explicit writing, unless it happens to involve the actions of a Democratic President and a female intern.

[theboss]

5. So he said . . .

Aw, Steve, now you're not actually questions about history, just trying to score debating points. If you prefer your seventh-grader's memory of the Reagan White House to accounts from someone who spent six years working there, then there's just nothing I can tell you, is there? But to recap: Reagan DID speak about AIDS, and often; DID spend money on AIDS research (nearly $6 billion, in fact); and DID appoint Koop and retain him as Surgeon General. (And as the independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, who spent seven years and more than $30 million investigating the matter, was forced to conclude, there was no evidence that Reagan knew about Ollie North's diversion of funds to the Contras.) If you want to play, play fair.

[theboss]

6. So I said . . .

I may be going for cheap debating points, but I am not hiding behind the canard of "I know; I was there." I recently read an inverview with
Sydney Blumenthal where he explains in great detail all the wonderful things Bill Clinton did to fight terrorism. Do you take him at face value? He shouldknow, after all, since he was there.

Out of curiosity, how often besides that '85 presser did Reagan speak
about AIDS. The 1987 date I give is believed to the only prepared statements Reagan gave up to that point. The press conference date you gave is five days before Rock Hudson died. I believe at that point, he was in the hospital and the cause of his sickness was already being mentioned in the press.

I'm actually somewhat impressed that a reporter would have asked
that question. And I give Reagan credit for actually saying "AIDS" in
response and not "That thing you just asked me about."

[ronnykmarshall]

7. CUDOS!!

Keep 'em coming!

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. A question for AIDS historians

Could Reagan really 'have been supporting it for more than 4 years now' in September 1985, when the syndrome was only named 'AIDS' in 1982 (see http://www.thebody.com/cdc/faq/generalFAQ.html - "In 1982 public health officials began to use the term "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome," or AIDS, to describe the occurrences of opportunistic infections, Kaposi's sarcoma, and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in previously healthy men. Formal tracking (surveillance) of AIDS cases began that year in the United States.")

It's possible, I suppose, that federal money was going to a program before the condition had a name, but it seems unlikely. Any comments?

[Alenne]

17. that's interesting. nt

[theboss]

8. Disappointment kick

Nobody finds this the least bit interesting? I mean, the guy wrote the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech.

[peekaloo]

9. kick because some of us like your style!

:hug:

and your chutzpah!

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Kick because some of us want more people to read it.

:)

[bicentennial_baby]

11. Kick

:kick:



:yourock:

[Mixxster]

12. No response? Did he give up?

Interesting exchange. You did a good job. It seems like Reaganites have an especially virulent strain of historic revisionism.

[Alenne]

13. kick

[NicoleM]

15. Good work.

:thumbsup:

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Kick

*