November 16, 2003
UNLIKELY WATER-COOLER CHATTER:
Angels, Reagan and AIDS in America (Frank Rich, 11/16/03, NY Times)
Tonight is the night when Americans might have tuned into Part 1 of "The Reagans" on CBS. But the joke is on the whiners who forced the mini-series off the air. Just three weeks from tonight, HBO will present the first three-hour installment of Mike Nichols's film version of Tony Kushner's "Angels in America," starring Al Pacino and Meryl Streep. (Part 2 is a week later.) This epic is, among other things, a searing indictment of how the Reagan administration's long silence stoked the plague of AIDS in the 1980's. If "Angels" reaches an audience typical for HBO hits, it could detonate a debate bloody enough to make the fight over "The Reagans" look like an exhibition bout.That's not such a big if. "Angels" is the most powerful screen adaptation of a major American play since Elia Kazan's "Streetcar Named Desire" more than a half-century ago. It's been produced not only with stars but at four times the budget of "The Reagans." People are going to talk about it, and, as they do, HBO will replay it relentlessly to rake in more and more of the country. Threats of a boycott against a channel soon to unveil a new season of "The Sopranos" will go nowhere.
"Angels" is only minutes old when Mr. Pacino appears as a real-life crony of the Reagans — Roy Cohn, in his post-McCarthy-era incarnation as a still-powerful Republican fixer, closely tied to the Ed Meese justice department. A photo on his office wall shows him arm in arm with both the president and his vice president. Cohn is also a closeted gay man dying of AIDS. When he takes a sexual partner to the White House, he gloats, "President Reagan smiles at us and shakes his hand." Eventually Cohn will threaten to reveal "adorable Ollie North and his secret contra slush fund" unless the White House secures him a private stash of AZT, then the most promising AIDS drug and still unavailable to all but a few. Cohn gets his pills while thousands of other dying Americans are placed on hold.
The bits about Roy Cohn being "closeted" (his homosexuality was used to smear Joe McCarthy in the early '50s), about AIDs being a plague (not unlike George W. Bush referring to the war on terror as a "crusade") and about this movie generating some kind of wide debate are amusing, but what's disappointing is that Mr. Rich never bothers to touch upon the really interesting policy question that surrounds Ronald Reagan and AIDs: simple compassion and human decency requires us to care for the dying, but why would conservatives view it as in the public interest to make immoral and self-destructive behaviors less dangerous?
AIDs is a difficult disease to give yourself and is very easily avoided. Ronald Reagan and other conservatives believe(d) you're morally obligated to avoid those behaviors that spread this disease and many others. Meanwhile, folks like Dr. Koop, mentioned later in the story, helped to spread AIDs by telling gay men they'd be "safe" if only they used condoms. Who then is more responsible for the AIDs subpandemic (wouldn't want to be judgmental and call it a plague), those who endorsed the behavior that caused it or those who opposed?
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 16, 2003 12:20 PMWaitaminute!! They are claiming that Reagan is responsible for AIDS because he was silent about it??!!
But the people who spread it around--and who knew quite well how it was spread--these people are blameless?
I recall reading about how the CDC had a three-letter acronym for how AIDS was spread, but didn't dare utter them: PAS (promiscuous anal sex).
Posted by: sam at November 16, 2003 12:54 PMOn the cultural level, which is what Rich's article is really about, as it is not about AIDS per se, we see his (and so many others) palpable... make that flagrant, desire.... make that yearning, to see their glory days of the Sixties, and the relentless good fight against evil conservatives, brought to life once more.
His hope for "threats of a boycott" that will inevitably fail betray his thinking all too clearly, as does "People are going to be talking about it", etc.
Obviously, conservatives would not care less what HBO cables, as they never have. If they did, 'Angels in America' would be about twentieth on the list. There is a world of difference between cable and network broadcasting, and a world of difference between a show about AIDS, the gay community, and Reagan's (allleged) policies, and a show about Ronald and Nancy Reagan personally and specifically that creates unheard of dialogue out of whole cloth.
As for 'Angels', it will likley do OK, and win some Emmys. It will not be the cultural event Rich is pleading for. And it will remain of far less significance than the events that saw 'The Reagans' pulled from CBS.
Nice try, though, Frank.
Keep Hope Alive, Brother-man!
Posted by: Andrew X at November 16, 2003 1:12 PMApparently, Reagan was supposed to (1) End the AIDS epidemic but (2) Not condemn the gay sexual practices which spread it. That would have been beyond even Reagan's considerable powers. By politicizing AIDS, making it an issue of "civil rights" and "personal freedom" rather than epidemiology, gay activists bear most of the responsibility for the epidemic.
Posted by: Fulmar at November 16, 2003 1:40 PMWhile Orrin preaches admonitions to
"be good," which were never likely to be effective, there was an obvious public health measure that could have been and should have been adopted -- sexual contact tracing. It was the pro-AIDS lobby that read that out of court.
I had friends who were contact tracers back in the '60s (for syphilis, primarily), and my wife (then girlfriend) did all the lab work for them.
It was very, very effective at interrupting epidemic spreads of the disease and comparatively cheap.
Destroyed a lot of marriages, though.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 16, 2003 3:24 PMHarry-
You're absolutely right. Common sense would say that all sexually transmitted diseases should be controlled through time tested methods which have been shown to work. The radical egalitarianism of the sixties combined with moral relativism precluded common sense in this case. A peculiarly American manifestation of rationalism leavened by materialism, since all sexuality came to be seen as relative while the traditional moral strictures genrerated by the Judeo-Christian tradition were becoming "outdated". What rationale was left for criticizing prommiscuous sexual behavior on the part of homosexuals? None. What is left for the egalitarian relativists but criticism of the Republican government and Mr. Reagan? I guess humanity is not always very rational or reasonable when faced with facts that run counter to their pre-conceptions or wishful thinking.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at November 16, 2003 4:20 PMDidn't the CDC know that unless it scared the American public that we all could get AIDS, the American public wouldn't support the programs?
Posted by: Sandy P. at November 16, 2003 7:55 PMUnfortunately, Sandy is right.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 16, 2003 9:38 PMHarry:
Admonitions may or may not be effective (but DEFINITELY may not if they're never even made).
Being good, however, is 100% effective.
Posted by: Judd at November 17, 2003 7:32 AMDidn't the CDC, as a taxpayer funded agency, realize that broad based funding for AIDS research could only be attained by misrepresenting the truth? Maybe. I believe that the approach largely consisted in equating heterosexuality with homosexuality which, interestingly enough, goes along nicely with sexual relativism and radical egalitarianism. The implication being that ideology trumps science and rational inquiry. Doesn't seem reasonable, does it?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at November 17, 2003 11:37 AMWell, you can blame radical egalitarianism if you want, but the pro-AIDS lobby was concerned with the practical consideration that sexual contact tracing would have led to discrimination on other levels as well, insurance and employability, for example.
They had ample reason to think so.
If I had to pick a subject guaranteed to generate the worst possible result, it would be a conflict between individual sexual behavior, religious morality and political control.
The worst offenders were not, on the whole, the worst sufferers.
So what else is new?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 18, 2003 7:05 PMJob discrimination probably doesn't seem that important to the dead now.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2003 7:15 PM