cal environment existing at the time of HIV's introduction into the United States, together with the disease amplification networks, maximized the transmission of HIV rather than reduced it (Francis, 2001, p. 391). Politically, upper-level elected officials were incapable of allowing, not to mention guiding, an appropriate public health response to a disease transmitted by homosexual sex and intravenous drug use. There was active obstruction of the essential public health interventions required to decrease HIV's transmission (Francis, 2001, p. 391).
A review of the literature on this topic reveals that most experts and researchers agree that President Ronald Reagan was slow to respond to the public health threat that AIDS represented (Garrett, 1988, p. 1). Researchers generally give two reasons for this slow response. First, some researchers and most AIDS activists contend that Reagan, a conservative Republican, was not interested in pursuing a disease that, at that time, seemed confined to high-risk populations, namely homosexuals and intravenous-drug users (Francis, 2001, p. 390). Second, other researchers note that presidents have historically maintained a low profile with newly identified public health hazards (Rimmerman, 1998, p. 1).
For example, author Craig Rimmerman contends that presidents are political creatures who often hesitate to act on such concerns when the scope of the threat is unclear and becoming involved seems to offer little political gain and many risks (Rimmerman, 1998, p. 1). Rimmerman, therefore, sees the response of U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, as fitting within this general pattern of presidential caution in addressing public health concerns (Rimmerman, 1998, p. 1). During this period, U.S. policy toward AIDS revolved around limited anti-discrimination legislation and research funding (Garrett, 1988, p. 1).
Researchers also note that then-presidential candidate ...