Write a Comment
8 Comments
"Which means the National Institutes of Health will be cut by $6 billion dollars. Ladies and gentlemen, kiss your NIH-funded AIDS cure goodbye if this happens" Well, there's part of the problem. As a member of "Generation Y" who was raised on libertarian pablum and is just beginning to toy with the idea of AIDS activism, the link between the NIH and a cure appears hazy at best. To many of us, it seems as though the vast majority of research is already being carried out by private companies or foreign governments, with little to no assistance from US federal dollars. The general reticence of many established researchers and polticians only furthers this perception. In the future, this can be rectified with three actions. The first part is simple: An occasional handful of sentences reminding us of the role that the NIH has played in the development of current therapies would go a long ways towards encouraging people to support it and the politicians who fund it. It would provide a background for us to get off our butts and vote when the time is right. We don't need continual admonishment or lengthy lectures on the history of HIV research, but a little bit of education would go a LONG way. It appears to me that you've already begun retooling the message we get to provide these reminders. The second two are beyond what the media can provide...we need actual support. We need ADAP programs that don't lapse whenever there is a budget shortfall. No one is going to fight to support politicians who've already failed them. We need researchers to actively talk about a cure and have the same "stop the presses" moment for the Berlin Patient as they had for whatever the most recent vaccine breakthrough was. We need key bureaucrats to be a little less reticient in their promises because, frankly, no one is going to be motivated by gaurded phrases like Sebelius' "we will do everything we can to maintain these essential services" and Fauci's "I’m fairly certain—at least in my circles—that there is a new energy and a dedication to search for the cure". We're not stupid and we can see through the smoke, that they're not promising anything at all. Broken promises might make disgruntled voters, but non-promises make non-voters. Nobody is driving to their polling station as an act of charity towards their candidate of choice. Finally, we need actual progress in the treatment of HIV and the quality of life we can expect.
According to CNN, 62% of the electorate said that the economy was the #1 issue when casting their vote. So, I do not think the protests by these students had any real effect on the outcome of the election. The protesters must recall that the President's promise for PEPFAR funding was made before the economic meltdown of 2008. The gamut of problems he faced from day one on the job caused severe problems in governing the country - an activity that is easier to criticize than actually do. None of the easy decisions are given to the President. He gets only the hard ones and he is privy to a lot more intelligence briefings about a host of issues that very few people even in his cabinet are aware of. I do not profess to know much about the AIDS issue to support the activists' protests or not, but I do know this much: As a leader, it is the President's job, to quote from Jim Collins's ideas on Leadership, to appoint the right people to important positions on the leadership team and to get the wrong people off the bus quickly. In this regard, the President has failed badly on many grounds. The wrong people were appointed to the Economic recovery team and they did not understand the plight of everyday folks but were aware only of the small reductions in the hefty bonus checks of their fat-cat banker friends. The same can be said of the persons in charge of the Global Health Initiative. The wrong people who are in charge should be dumped off the bus quickly and input should be sought from a panel of experts who can offer quality advice based on field experience. While it may be difficult for the President to deliver on his promise for AIDS funding unless economic problems at home are first taken care of, by appointing the right people, he would show signs of good leadership and perhaps his team would give him better advice on the steps to take to arrive at a good short-term solution on global health till the economy turns around. As the first commenter, Matt, writes, all that is requested is "one WEEK's budget on the two wars" to be shifted per YEAR for global health. There ought to be a way for the President to get at least half-a-week's war budget allocated per year to the Global health initiative.
An estimated 2 billion dollars has been spent on the Iraq War and the cost continues. We have to quit being duped into believing there isn't enough, that this is a matter of LACK. We certainly had enough funds to bail out Wall Street, to fund a ridiculous and tragic war. Insufficient AIDS funding is due to a MISALLOCATION OF PRIORITIES. Save lives, or take them? By looking at where tax dollars are being spent, we can see where the priority lies. 2 billion would put a pretty enormous dent in the AIDS crisis, and unemployment while you're at it. Dissent is at the heart of democracy. At least there are youth in this country willing to interrupt, to question, to have a voice. Most are too engrossed in their iphone applications and trips to the mall to give a damn. These youth don't believe in party politics anymore, that there is any real difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Your agenda is not theirs, per se. They do not believe that the Democrats are the 'good' guys and the Republicans are the 'bad' guys. All they see are lies, empty words, and unfulfilled promises on both sides. All they see is maneuvering, great speeches, charisma, but not a lot of tangible results or follow through. After Obama promised to close Guantanamo, he caved to pressure, and 176 detainees are still being held there. This is only one example. Dissent does not have a 'convenient' or 'appropriate' time. That is a bourgeoisie brain wash. Get rid of it. It creates meaningless rallies that no one pays attention to. It's a treadmill of feeling purposeful while doing nothing. It's a way to distract you. Many activists are on that treadmill, afraid to truly step out of line, and get something done. True civil disobedience and dissent is the only thing that has ever changed anything. I think we all need a refresher in civil disobedience. Gandhi 101.
You've clearly put a lot of thought into the question of when and how to hold the president accountable for his promises on AIDS. I wish more people were having this conversation, this thoughtfully. I am a member of ACT UP Philly, and was one of the small group of people who disrupted President Obama on Saturday in Philly (in between efforts to get out the vote for Sestak and Onorato). Honestly, I was conflicted too... up until the moment of interrupting the president. The crowd around us was angered, but not because of our message. They were mad we were blocking their photos! And I realized that our disruptions are unlikely to suppress voter turnout. Every time we disrupt him, Obama gets to make the point of how much better than the Republicans he is, and your average "Rally to Restore Sanity" voter is affirmed that he's their guy. Meanwhile, while I can imagine that the president feels annoyed by us, I also know that he's not a guy who makes policy out of spite. Right now, I think he makes policy because he's getting terrible advice, and other voices AREN'T GETTING THROUGH. I want him to put some thought into this issue, and so people without access are going to have to SHOUT through the bad advice being constantly whispered in his ear. I'd be 100% on your side, if I believed that President Obama would let his annoyance sway his good sense, and if I believed that angry protests about global AIDS could suppress voter turnout. But I think both of those premises are highly unlikely.
Voting is important. Meeting with elected officials, relaying messages through the President's Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS are too. Meeting with electeds, writing policy papers, writing blogs are all good. However, without an outside strategy that includes activism these more quiet tactics are usually ignored by decision makers and lost in our collective memories. Here we are months later and we are still talking about Rev. Charles King's disruption of President Obama's speech to the invited crowd in the White House. Here we are 2 budgets in to the Presidency and there is, in fact, a broken promise to fully fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. There is no way around it. Polite discussions through the usual channels have taken place. Elected officials have called the White House. The policy stands. Letters, phone calls, emails, facebook notes, blogs have been made. The policy stands. President Obama is not going to fully fund the fight against AIDS unless we make him do it. How do we do that? Yes, by voting, but also by holding him accountable-IN PUBLIC-to his campaign promises. Gonsalves and King are doing the right thing and we should support them rather then critiquing their tactics. They are the best chance we have of winning. I salute them and the other brave new AIDS activists who are joining the struggle.
It's worth noting that underfunding is not just happening because of the recession. It's happening in large part because of Obama's advisor, Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, believes essentially that AIDS treatment (and MDR-TB treatment) is not cost effective for people in poor countries. In his mind, we should invest in "cheaper" interventions at the expense of people with HIV. Activists have been trying to meet with Obama, and going thru "official" channels for nearly two years. And what has come of it? No substantial increases in funding for global AIDS, AND a pledge to the global fund that was $2 billion shy of what was needed to just keep current commitments. It was time to escalate, and to show the president that AIDS treatment must be a priority for his administration. And yes, everyone should vote to make sure that right-wing people who would gut programs that save the lives of people we care about are not elected.
Regan, you make the case clearly and strongly for why activism is badly needed and the deep limits of what the Obama administration has done--but we are somehow supposed to be okay with this because they are listening? Let's be very clear: -The difference between fulfilling Obama's AIDS promises is just 1 week of spending on the war in Iraq & Afghanistan -Obama has proposed $3 billion in NEW spending on nuclear weapons in his last budget Let's not confuse being listened to with policy changes, please! Way too much hangs in the balance for us to be excited about having nice people in the Offices of National AIDS Policy and Global AIDS Coordinator... They're very nice and smart folks, but they don't have the resources to do their jobs. And that is nobody's responsibility but the President's.
Mulberry Bayswater
I do not profess to know much about the AIDS issue to support the activists' protests or not, but I do know this much: As a leader, it is the President's job, to quote from Jim Collins's ideas on Leadership, to appoint the right people to important positions on the leadership team and to get the wrong people off the bus quickly.
January 17, 2011