Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

so, in terms of political maturity, would that make andrew sullivan less than 10? I certainly think so....

We could make of it that Reagan was another dumkopf who couldn't read the newspapers or talk to another human being, and thereby find out what's really going on.

Where's the assertion of a lie? What, is Reagan somehow not responsible for the people he chose to work for him? We are not to be judged by our actions, but by our intentions ("his heart was in the right place")?

In most cases, Prof D is correct, the czar is the Czar, and he is responsible for those he chooses to be his flunkies.

But... in this one case... I thought that once Koop got the message through to Reagan, things started to happen.

Am I wrong on this?

Are you trying to have it both ways? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that earlier in this blog Reagan was accused of not having a firm grasp of what was going on in his administration, at least in the sense that he set the major policy decisions and allowed his subordinates to do all the busy work. Given this, it is a tad disgenious to claim that Reagan was both a clueless President because he delegated so much of his authority and also that he is at fault for not being fully aware of issues that his subordinates did not deem it necessary to tell him.

Even if you didn't say such things earlier, it is still possible for Andrew Sullivan's argument to be entirely plausible and internally coherent if he took the stance that Reagan did indeed delegate much of his Presidential powers and therefore trusted his subordinates to use their judgement as to what should be brought to him.

Just to be fair to Sullivan, he says (http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_06_27_dish_archive.html#108869754218829626):

Reagan is responsible for not over-ruling these advisors.

Veteran blog-readers should remove their duffs from the Aerons and get themselves to a library to check out issue 43 of _October_, which was the _Artforum_ expats' take on the AIDS crisis. It'll do for them re AIDS what the opening of Moore's F911 did for them re the 2000 (s)election fiasco: remind them. What we forget is how utterly terrifying it was that a new "plague" was erupting, and how we -- and, believe me, I *know* -- had no [Cheney expletive] clue what it was, what its limits were, how it would unfold, etc. What we *did* have were defensive jokes about the 4H Club, and so on. The best history isn't some lame reassessment of Reagan's legacy; it's the inquiry that brings what we've forgotten, or perhaps never knew (but can yet know) to life. Brad's got it right, and the quibblers have it very, very wrong. And, worst of all, it ain't even history -- quite to the contrary. Today I saw a guy I've known for a decade, with KS lesions busting out everywhere and his motor skills fading to the point where I could barely understand him. I desperately wanted to give him a hug, but was afraid; and I was ashamed that I was afraid. But I've lost so many, many friends for twenty years now that, when faced with a choice between what I know and what I remember, my choice was made. And, if it matters, I am and have been straight. That used to be safe quarter, or so we thought; but it isn't, and it won't be. AIDS is a terrible thing, and crappy little attention-seeking apoloigists like Sullivan (who has a deep history in this regard) can't change that. Ever. They missed their chance to do so. And by engaging in tawdry revisionism they reaffirm that failure. Over time, a sin of omission can indeed become a sin of commission, as Sullivan -- by his own standards -- may yet learn.

Yo, Brad! I immodestly think I gave a more detailed, supported, response here. (You might check out some of my other posts, too; you never link, you never write, I'll just sit here in the dark, don't mind me.)

(After preview. Sigh. Here:
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/07/president-was-helpless-helpless-i-tell.html

I added teh RSS feed for Photoblogs.org and I got this one too lol

Brad,

Clearly you read the Op-Ed pages first thing every day, and usually comment on one or two.

Why have you - along with the rest of the blogosphere - completely ignored Kerry's Wash Post Op-Ed?

I suspect partly it's because the piece is boring election pablum. Why bother with Kerry when Krugman or Sullivan or someone elsewhere is saying something easier and more fun to criticize?

On the other hand, he suggests, for example, debt relief for Iraq. Now, quick - what's Bush's position on this? Does he have one? Why not?

Kerry's gets labeled "Boring." Yet when he takes the trouble to publish an Op-Ed it gets completely ignored, though it says something unprecedented in campaign debate to date.

What's a guy gotta do? Pick Nancy?

Dismissing our only alternative to perdition as "boring" is very unwise. Perhaps a little nuanced DeLongian analysis would liven things up. If you don't, who will?

Cheers,
Brian.

Sounds like the common exclamation by 3rd Reich germans: "Wenn das der Führer wüsste!" (If the Führer was aware of this..."; hinting at his supposed disapproval of certain atrocities and bureaucratic madness).

The week of the funeral I heard enough rewritting of history to last me a lifetime.
If they want to contunue to make Reagan
the second comming let them live in their fanasty world and let us go on to deal with the real world.

I am not sure I get it...

I supported Ronald Reagan because I am a Conservative. I was glad to help in a very small way in his Nicaragua initiative and think he did a good job on handling Russia. However as I Conservative I also got bigger Government and increased spending with deficits. All in all 1 triumph and many defeats. I couldn’t support Bush the elder. Then I got a conservative President named Clinton. We can address social issues while balancing the budget and maintaining a secure defense. Clinton showed us how, I wonder if anyone in Washington learned anything.

Why have you - along with the rest of the blogosphere - completely ignored Kerry's Wash Post Op-Ed?

Aid us, then- link?

Aid us, then- link?

Of course. Sorry.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0704.html

Brad DeLong writes, "No one over the age of ten has any excuse for forgetting that the cossacks work for the Czar--not the Czar for the cossacks."

No one who has attended a history class taught by Mr. Harris has any excuse for forgetting that the President--unlike a Czar--works for The People, not the other way around! (I guess Brad DeLong's excuse is that he never attended a history class taught by Mr. Harris. ;-))

Let's face facts: social conservatives of all political parties--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, whatever--simply were not ready in the 1980s to have the government advising sexually active homosexuals and intraveneous drug users on ways that they could remain sexually active or drug users, while still avoiding AIDs. Given the fact that a President must be *elected* before he can *serve* (as opposed to a Czar), it isn't surprising that Reagan didn't hold any press conference advising homosexuals on how to practice safe sex. And it's more than a tad unrealistic to think that any Democrat who had been in the White House in the 1980-88 time period would have behaved substantially differently.

It's not like Ronald Reagan threw homosexuals in prison...either for their homosexuality or their AIDs. (He *did* throw intraveneous drug users in prison, an unconstitutional act for which he should be severely criticized.)

Neither did Reagan (to my knowledge) ever espouse the thought that, "they deserve what they get"...again, other than perhaps drug users deserving prison.

Finally, there is the fact that funding for AIDs research increased percentagewise very dramatically throughout the Reagan administration. In fact, can Dr. DeLong name any Congressional appropriation for AIDs that Ronald Reagan ever vetoed?

To be fair, was the optimal amount of public money to spend on AIDS research ever that high? I'm not convinced that spending more money on cardiovascular, cancer, or auto safety research wouldn't save more lives. Those are the things that most people truly have to fear.

Let's face facts: social conservatives of all political parties--Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, whatever--simply were not ready in the 1980s to have the government advising sexually active homosexuals and intraveneous drug users on ways that they could remain sexually active or drug users, while still avoiding AIDs.

It was not necessary for Reagan to pull out his wanker and give a demo on how to put a condom on.

This was an EPIDEMIC, in which people were dying, and under Reagan the CDC was denied the funding necessary to track it, let alone do the kind of research needed to treat it.

There is something about falling back on the need to be elected, after a president is already elected, that doesn't ring true as a defense in this case. Reagan was president already. If there was an obvious ethical path to follow, not following that path cannot be excused by arguing that it would make re-election more difficult. A sharp absolute increase in AIDS research funding is a better defense, a sharp percentage rise not so impressive, given where we started. Koop says he could have saved more lives if he had had support from Reagan. He didn't get it.

It is equally unconvincing to lean on a sort of "nobody could have done better" argument, though I realize such arguments are very popular on politics. To assert that a Democrat would not have done better at precisely that time is pretty convenient, since we cannot go back and give a Democrat the chance to try. And don't tell me all the other kids would have done the same thing - that doesn't make it all right.

The King has evil advisors.

...and when did the USA turn into a monarchy, pray tell? it's getting scary out there.

By the way, the "unreadyness" of the USA to deal with AIDS was an opportunity for a president to show his mettle as a leader, not an excuse for presidential inaction.

And so in the 1980's the public wasn't ready for the President to deal with a public health crisis?

This is inexcusable by any standards, Mark.

Reagan's response to AIDS had little or nothing to do with religious Conservativism. The man was an actor, he KNEW intravenous drug users, gays, etc. It had to do with the economic part of conservativism - A disease, no matter WHAT disease or who it affects, is no the responsibility of the federal government. Prevention, diagnosis, cure - to the extent any of these are government, they are state government. In his worldview, AIDS was not a Federal issue, as a matter of public health was a state and local issue, and predominately it was a private issue of those who had it and their doctors. He wasn't cruel and heartless, or blind, or stupid. Just conservative about government's role.

Must we also forget the gay community resisted many of the standard epidemilogical investigation techniques until it was too late? Politicization of a disease has proven to be a disaster. Let the public health people take care of disease, and put conservative politics and liberal politics out of the game. AIDS kills- now in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki has proven once again that combining politics with public health is a proven disaster. Anyone who gets into public office or advises them should remember this and just give the scientists the money and shut up. The whole thing has proven the disease does not respect class or politics. How many hemophiliacs are dead or dying because of AIDS?

You know you're a left-wing fringe lunatic, when you believe; Michael Moore is only lying 20% of the time, George W. Bush was a deserterAWOLdraftdodgernotabletpassadrugtest, AND that Ronald Reagan was responsible for AIDS.

Congratulations on the Trifecta!

Btw, Koop seems to be telling a different story now:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/tylerprize/koop

----------quote--------
AIDS provoked growing concern during 1986 as health authorities began to realize the full implications and international dimensions of the disease. The potential global consequences of the AIDS epidemic were officially recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) in November, 1986, in an announcement which described the disease as "a health disaster of pandemic proportions." The prospect that heterosexual transmission might become predominant outside of Africa could not be dismissed. In a report issued in 1986, Surgeon General Koop warned of the potential spread of AIDS beyond the already identified highrisk groups to the population at large. By mailing an informative pamphlet on AIDS to every American household, Dr. Koop gave most people their first comprehensive information in plain language about the disease.
----------endquote--------

There's that wonderful Patrick Sullivan alternative reality again.

AIDS, although not yet known by that name, began to be recognized publically in 1981; it got the name in 1982; by '83-'84 the numbers were rising; in '85, Rock Hudson died of AIDS, increasing the profile of the disease; and Koop, a man of tremendous integrity in his job as Surgeon General, finally gets the ability to send around a pamphlet in '86 - a pamphlet! - and this means that he's changing his tune by now noting that there were plenty of conservatives around Reagan who didn't want to deal with AIDS.

We won't, of course, even waste our time about the rest of Patrick's Trifecta, other than to note the irony of Patrick referencing a Trifecta when it was Bush who made a minimum of 13 speeches in which he claimed to have created for himself a Trifecta loophole on the budget when it was Gore who had actually said such a thing....

Brad did leave out this part of AS'post:

"Reagan is responsible for not over-ruling these advisors."

Anyone who's genuinely expressing confusion (as opposed to trying to sow confusion) over what the Reagan White House could have done differently, or whether it would've made any difference, please just go read "And the Band Played On" right now, and then come back and we can talk about it.

Rvman thinks diseases are not federal concerns. Rvman either doesn't know or doesn't care that the CDC, a federal agency, was the only reason we found out about the epidemic when we did - no other organization was in a position to notice the sudden rash of unusual antibiotic demand across the country. I kind of doubt rvman has ever worked in health care or any research field.

Chris thinks we'd be better off spending money on auto safety and heart disease. Car accidents and heart disease are not CONTAGIOUS EPIDEMICS which are SPREADING EXPONENTIALLY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. Think "most people" don't have much of a chance of dying of AIDS? Then wait a few more years. I can't believe people are still saying things like this.

From WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE #1, October 15, 1982

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement--the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?

LARRY SPEAKES: What’s AIDS?

Q: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague” (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?

SPEAKES: I don’t have it, do you? (Laughter.)

Q: No, I don’t.

SPEAKES: You didn’t answer my question. How do you know? (Laughter.)

Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President-- In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?

SPEAKES: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.

Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?

SPEAKES: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any--

Q: Nobody knows?

SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.

Q: No, I mean, I though you were keeping--

SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he’s had no, (Laughter) no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.

Q: The President doesn’t have gay plague, is that what you’re saying or what?

SPEAKES: No, I didn’t say that.

Q: Didn’t say that?

SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn’t you stay there? (Laughter.)

Q: Becuase I love you, Larry, that’s why. (Laughter.)

SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don’t put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)

Q: Oh, I retract that.

SPEAKES: I hope so.

Q: It’s too late.

Eight months later: PRESS CONFERENCE #2, June 13, 1983

Q: Larry, does the President think that it might help if he suggested that the gays cut down on their “cruising”? (Laughter.) What? I didn’t hear your answer, Larry.

SPEAKES: I was just acknowledging your interest in this subject.

Q: You were acknowledging--but don’t you think it would help if the gays cut down on their cruising--it would help AIDS?

SPEAKES: We are researching it. If we come up with any research that sheds some light on whether gays should cruise or not cruise, we’ll make it available to you. (Laughter.)

Q: Back to fairy tales.

A year and a half later: PRESS CONFERENCE #3, December 11, 1984

SPEAKES: Lester's beginning to circle now. He's moving in front. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

Q: Since the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta (Laughter) reports--

SPEAKES: This is going to be an AIDS question.

Q: ...that an estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. Will the President, as Commander-in-Chief, take steps to protect Armed Forces food and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they forbid typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services?

SPEAKES: I don't know.

Q: Could you-- Is the President concerned about this subject, Larry?

SPEAKES: I haven’t heard him express...

Q: ...that seems to have evoked so much jocular--

SPEAKES: ...concern.

Q: reaction here? I-- you know--

Q: It isn't only the jocks, Lester.

Q: Has he sworn off water faucets?

Q: No, but, I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?

SPEAKES: Lester, I have not heard him express anything on it. Sorry.

Q: You mean he has no expressed no opinion about this epidemic?

SPEAKES: No, but I must confess I haven't asked him about it. (Laughter.)

Q: Would you ask him Larry?

SPEAKES: Have you been checked? (Laughter.)

Transcribed from: http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_06_06_americablog_archive.html#108681568783523170

Lee A:
"press conferences"

Andrew Sullivan posted the exact same transcripts on his website.

"If only the Fuhrer knew. He wouldn't let this happen."

I have always admired Koop for the way he looked at the AIDS problem and pushed for appropriate actions. The present maladministration would have booted him out the door the first time he suggested that sex education and condoms might reduce the spread of AIDS.

Aren't we talking about the same HIV-positive Andrew Sullivan who responsibly and maturely submitted a classified ad soliciting "bareback" sex, ie, anal sex without protection? I can't rate his judgement highly.

"Anyone who's genuinely expressing confusion (as opposed to trying to sow confusion) over what the Reagan White House could have done differently, or whether it would've made any difference, please just go read "And the Band Played On" right now, and then come back and we can talk about it."

Sorry, Eli. You've apparently read the book. Summarize it. Tell us what it said that the Reagan White House could have done differently. And if the book makes predictions about how those different actions would have produced different results, summarize the predicted different results, too.

Well, how anyone might "have done" something "differently," is the stock-in-trade of everybody, isn't it?

However, I'm a little surprised to find out that Andrew Sullivan (1) printed these transcripts at his own site, yet (2) maintains that St. Ronald must've been clueless (on yet another of many topics).

But then, almost anybody's "heart is in the right place"!
Everyone else eventually says so, don't they?

Poor howard, he wouldn't have had to even stop in an airport bookstore to read (from Miami'sTWN):

---------quote---------
20 YEARS AGO
Reagan inks Emergency Fund – Washington, D.C.: Ending rumors that he would veto such legislation, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill calling for a creation of a $30 million interagency Public Health Emergency Fund, the Gay Rights National Lobby announced. The fund could potentially release millions of dollars for AIDS research and education that would be available to any agency in the department of Health and Human Services in the presence of a "public health emergency." The money is only available if Congress does not address the emergency in its regular appropriation process, so GRNL is busying efforts to request $30 million in funding for AIDS, a spokesman said. Congress recently assigned $13 million for AIDS research during this fiscal year, but health officials said much of the money was already spent.
Source: THE WEEKLY NEWS, July 20, 1983.
----------endquote---------

and:

---------quote----------
15 YEARS AGO
Coalition Voices concern over Dukakis’ VP choice – Washington, D.C.: Gay and Lesbian VOICE (Voters Organized in Coalition for the Election), a confederation of several of the nation’s largest gay and lesbian political groups, have issued a join statement expressing deep concern with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), Democratic presidential-nominee-to-be Gov. Michael Dukakis’ vice presidential running mate.
"Senator Bentsen’s record does not reflect the same level of commitment to AIDS gay/lesbian civil rights as does Governor Dukakis," reads the statement issued by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Human Rights Campaign Fund and the Gay and Lesbian Democrats of America. The statement points out that while serving in the U.S. Senate, Bentsen has voted for: restrictions on AIDS educational materials targeted at the gay community; mandatory HIV antibody testing of marriage license applicants, immigrants, sex offenders, VA hospital patients and immigrants; and the limitation of the District of Columbia’s gay and lesbian civil rights law. "We stand ready to work with Senator Bentsen in attaining a greater level of understanding on these and other issues," the statement adds.
"We are supportive of growth in all politicians and hope that Gov. Dukakis will encourage such growth in his running mate. In the meantime, the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket has a lot of work to do in reassuring the gay/lesbian community and those concerned about AIDS that this new team will be responsive and forward thinking on the full spectrum of public health and civil rights concerns."
Source: THE WEEKLY NEWS, July 20, 1988
---------endquote-----------

Hey, that's Prof. DeLong's former boss who is being castigated.

Patrick, do you honestly think you have brought something useful to the discussion? I mean, really, as i said to you the other day, don't let page 337 go to your head....

Now, what you specifically said was that Dr. Everett Koop was "telling a different story now." Your evidence was the pamphlet that was mailed out.

I noted that AIDS had been going on a very long time before Koop was allowed to send out that pamphlet and asked how this meant he was changing his story.

And your response? That the Reagan administration didn't veto a tiny "emergency" appropriation. Which shows Dr. Koop changing his story now exactly how? Which demonstrates that conservatives didn't want Reagan to touch the issue of AIDS how?

Sort of like the Bentsen story, whose relevance i'm sure is clear in Patrick-land....

Only in Patrick-land!

We might state without proof but without much fear of contradiction that Nancy Reagan was as well-connected as any person on the planet to hear about the full measure of AIDS at the very dawn of horror. Think it was she who got the President up to speed?

Vae victis! - Woe to the conquered! (vanquished) (Livy)

7304 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

7183 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

5783 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

8175 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

5570 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com