AIDS May Be Partisan Issue in ’88 Races

The memo, although denounced as a fabrication, was nevertheless taken very seriously. It outlined a political strategy for using AIDS in the 1988 congressional and state legislative campaigns.

“This is the plan for the Garamendi campaign,” the memo said, referring to state Sen. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove). “We shall make contact with various pro-life, family-value organizations and have them launch campaigns. . . . Attacking Garamendi as pro-abortion, pro-gay and therefore pro-AIDS might prove to be easy.”

Citing a congressional district, the memo added, “If we are low-key, logical sounding and stressing the importance of ‘protecting’ families from the disease, then we could find ourselves in excellent shape in ’88.”

A Sober Appraisal

The purported author of the Sept. 17 memo, Republican consultant Charles Rund of San Francisco, said he did not write it. But the memo--with an attached GOP target list of 54 congressional Democrats that Rund said he did assemble for another purpose--launched a sober appraisal in Sacramento and Washington of whether AIDS could be used as a partisan issue in next year’s campaigns.

Congressional Democrats in districts where their party is marginal, in particular, wanted to know how they could head off a feared effort by the conservative right to paint them as “soft on AIDS.” Though there is some confusion over what that language means, it seems to describe those who differ with conservatives over such issues as mandatory testing and the disclosure of test results.

Because the disease first made inroads in the United States in the homosexual community, there also is an effort on the political right to cast AIDS in terms of morality.

“If I can’t get your attention on a moral or ethical basis on how humans are to express their human sexuality, perhaps I can get your attention on the basis of a personal or public health issue,” said the openly anti-homosexual Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), the leading proponent of this line of thinking. “Because the genus of this epidemic is anyone in our society who is promiscuous or perverse in their sexual practices.”

Warning by Dannemeyer

In the wake of the controversy raised by the debunked memo, Dannemeyer warned Democrats on the floor of the House on Nov. 9 that there was a “measure of truth” in the memo “with respect to a Republican plan to attack a select group of congressional incumbents in 1988 as being soft on AIDS.”

Although Dannemeyer called AIDS “a major political issue” in the upcoming elections, political consultants and pollsters for both parties agree that, at least in the presidential elections, AIDS is not likely to surface as a decisive issue.

When Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, in a recent debate, said, “We may all agree to keep AIDS out of the political arena in 1988,” he found no disagreement among candidates of either party. All support funding for research and education. All but two, Democrats Jesse Jackson and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, support mandatory testing of some groups, such as immigrants and prisoners.

“It’s the kind of issue people (presidential candidates) are going to have to talk about, but it’s going to be me-tooism,” said Richard Murray, University of Houston political scientist. Murray has conducted polls on AIDS and found the public deeply divided on how to respond to the epidemic, indicating that presidential candidates have little to gain and much to lose by making AIDS a focus. “It’s a dangerous issue, like the disease,” he said.

Could Enter Into Debate

But at the legislative and congressional level, AIDS could enter into the debate.

“It could be a deciding factor in a few places if someone effectively manipulates the political argument,” said Peggy Connolly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which held briefings on AIDS in the wake of the debunked GOP memo. “This is definitely one that everybody should watch.”

Republicans like Dannemeyer argue that Democrats, because of their political ties to the homosexual community, have hesitated in enacting vitally needed legislation to stem the epidemic. Since they control Congress and the state Legislature, that makes Democrats vulnerable to AIDS as a campaign issue, they said.

“Since they have welcomed the leadership of the male homosexual community into their political tent . . . then they have the privilege of accounting for that action,” Dannemeyer said.

GOP pollster Gary Lawrence of Santa Ana said AIDS can be used positively or negatively.

“If you are the kind of politician who wants to gain mileage by bashing at the other side, you’ll have a certain amount of success,” Lawrence said. “It’s up to you whether you want to be a statesman about it or a demagogue.”

‘Chastity and Monogamy’

Lawrence predicted that as the disease grows more costly and makes inroads into the heterosexual community, it will become an even more potent moral issue because people will view “chastity and monogamy (as) the most economical solutions to the problem.” Currently, about 4% of the 48,000 AIDS cases in the nation affect heterosexuals. The fastest growing groups to be affected are intravenous drug-users and their sexual partners.

Besides the fact that it first hit the homosexual community, AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) differs politically from other fatal diseases in another significant way. Stigma over the disease has led to discrimination in housing, employment, education and insurance, prompting civil rights and homosexual rights groups to seek legislative protection in the areas of AIDS testing and the release of those results to authorities.

In these concerns, Democrats have been more responsive. They also argue that, from a public health viewpoint, high-risk groups such as homosexuals will come forward for testing only if they are assured of confidentiality.

High-Risk Groups

Lawyer Susan McGreivy of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, who litigates AIDS discrimination cases, said high-risk groups fear positive tests could be compiled on lists that could be used other than for their intended public health purposes. This could force the AIDS epidemic underground where it could be handled least effectively, she said.

“The gay community, in particular, is justifiably scared,” McGreivy said. “It is very important, if you really want people to test, that you provide some type of protections as far as anonymity and confidentiality.”

Citing problems with the cost, confidentiality and accuracy of the tests for AIDS antibodies, Arkansas Rep. Beryl Anthony Jr., head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said: “These are not just simple issues. They cannot be wrapped up in the simple context of a political slogan.”

In any case, Anthony argues, Republicans are vulnerable as well. Like many Democrats, he criticized the Reagan Administration’s “failure of leadership . . . to adequately and properly educate the public.”

Further confusing the partisan ramifications of AIDS, a survey by the Los Angeles Times last July indicated that more people thought Democrats rather than Republicans would be more likely to have effective proposals to fight the disease.

In an attempt this fall to sort out the AIDS issue, Anthony asked Stanley B. Greenberg of the Analysis Group in Washington to brief congressional Democrats. Greenberg, who had studied national surveys on AIDS and conducted focus groups in Iowa in an effort to learn voter thinking on the disease, told those at a Nov. 3 briefing that “AIDS is a growing concern but, for now, a narrow and contained political issue.”

However, in the briefing and a subsequent interview, Greenberg indicated his reading of public thinking is that Dannemeyer strikes a chord in his call for broad mandatory testing, even at the expense of privacy or civil rights. Those who oppose such testing need to let voters know why they believe it would not work.

“People have trouble understanding why someone concerned with this issue would not support widespread testing,” Greenberg said in an interview. “Politicians who take up this issue and oppose a (mandatory) testing program have some explaining to do.”

‘Overriding Issue’

But Greenberg also said that indifference to privacy, or even broadly shared negative attitudes toward gays, should not be misread as an assault on gays or on a permissive society.

“Public health, not morality, is the overriding issue for these voters,” he said. This is in part, he said, because voters could put themselves in a situation where they or a member of their families contracted AIDS, and this lent an air of empathy to their responses.

“Those (politicians) at the moment who respond punitively are out of sync with the public’s concern about AIDS,” Greenberg said.

Connolly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said the briefing succeeded in cautioning Democratic members of Congress who are considered vulnerable in the 1988 election “to be prepared by having a solid record in approaching the situation as a serious health crisis in this country.”

Recalling the success of the Moral Majority in certain campaigns in the early 1980s, Connolly added: “Obviously when the question of morality is even raised in a political context, it can be very volatile and it can be very devastating if someone is caught off guard.”

‘Underhanded Campaign’

At least one of those at the Greenberg briefing, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of Rochester, N.Y.--the only Democrat to defeat a GOP congressional incumbent in 1986--took the briefing seriously enough that she is meeting with the medical society in her community on the AIDS issue “so that we can defuse it when it comes.”

“This kind of underhanded campaign, one never knows what the outcome of this might be,” Slaughter said.

Other Democrats on the GOP target list, such as Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner of New York and Jim Jontz of Indiana, said they listened but that they do not currently fear the issue could be used against them.

A California Democratic pollster, who asked not to be identified, said that in the wake of the memo his firm is conducting polls in other states to see if Democratic congressional members are vulnerable on the AIDS issue.

“I can’t imagine the issue working,” the pollster said. “It’s just so hard to make the leap from Democrats’ personal, political, governmental philosophies to the incredible spread of AIDS, like Democrats caused it or ignored the problem.” But, he added: “We’ve got to test to see if that’s right.”

Survey on AIDS

Mitch Daniels of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Indianapolis that commissioned a survey on AIDS, said he would advise a candidate “that he’s probably on firm ground in criticizing an opponent for doing too little” but that it is important “not to appear too harsh or oblivious to the suffering.”

Daniels warned that in future years there could be a huge backlash if the measures the public supports, such as research, education and testing, are not taken and an even bigger epidemic breaks out.

“Then you could have a very explosive situation,” Daniels said. “But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

In California, Sen. Garamendi said he believes the Senate Republican Caucus intends to carry out much of the discredited memo’s strategy to label Democrats as soft on AIDS in Garamendi’s and other senators’ districts.

“We’re concerned about it,” an aide to Garamendi said.

Dannemeyer’s less strident counterpart in the Legislature in the effort to bring AIDS into the political arena in 1988 is state Sen. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin), chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus. Doolittle, even Democrats concede, has preempted the AIDS issue in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, though his bill package--which includes measures such as mandating AIDS antibodies tests for prisoners and allowing insurance companies to test for the virus--has so far met with limited success.

Met With Consultant

Dannemeyer and Doolittle were among those who met with Rund, the Republican consultant, in Sacramento this fall to discuss AIDS. According to Doolittle’s aide, Stan Devereux, the subject of the meeting was not AIDS political strategy but the statewide AIDS initiative being sponsored by Dannemeyer. The initiative, in the signature-gathering stage, would permit more public reporting on AIDS, change state laws on confidentiality of tests and allow insurance companies to test for AIDS.

Devereux, spokesman for the Senate Republican Caucus, said “there’s no grandiose scheme to use AIDS as a political tool” in the upcoming elections.

However, Doolittle, who is facing opposition next year for his own seat, showed signs of raising the issue in the rural district he represents, where there are few AIDS cases but there are conservative attitudes toward many social questions. Although the opponent, Sutter County Sheriff Roy Whiteaker, a Democrat, says he does not think concern for AIDS is paramount in the district, Doolittle is attempting to make support for his AIDS legislation a litmus test.

As an indication of that, Devereux said recently: “It is quite clear Mr. Whiteaker supports the philosophy of the liberal Democratic majority, that is that there are some people who talk about it . . . and then there are some people trying to do something about it.”

Former Assembly Minority Leader Robert W. Naylor (R-Menlo Park), now chairman of the state Republican Party, said that while he knows of no GOP plans to use AIDS in the 1988 elections, “I would be surprised if that issue didn’t come up in campaigns in one form or another.”

But he added: “That somebody is not being aggressive enough on AIDS, I’m not sure ultimately it’s a very effective issue. . . . And if it gets into . . . discriminatory-sounding attacks, then I think the public recoils.”