• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    410 months ago

    He was in a position of power to ease the suffering of victims of a pandemic. He didn’t act until he couldn’t avoid it anymore. It doesn’t matter if his intent was apathy or hatred. His actions are what matters and for the leader of a nation to refuse to act on a public health crisis is abhorrent and inexcusable behavior.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        The distribution of power in the US is top-down. As the head of state, he was responsible for either instituting or delegating the policy and procedures of dealing with the aids pandemic. This ranges from healthcare to public outreach. He hired his cabinet, he had tremendous power to sway and inform public sentiment. He was one of the most popular candidates in the history of the US. He won 49 states in his re-election. The ignorance and homophobia that exploded in this time could have been mitigated to a large degree.

        You’re correct on saying it was mishandled on many levels. Those levels were all largely subordinate to Reagan’s cabinet. The director of the CDC is appointed by the president. He could’ve.influenced how aids was researched, treated, spread, and traced. The responsibility for the poor treatment of aids falls squarely on Reagan’s shoulders