« The Answer? Get Yourself and Your Posse To Washington DC — Create Your Own National Voice On AIDS | Main | AIDS Action Council Has A Serious Case Of Laryngitis As The National "Voice" On AIDS »
January 4, 2005
AIDS Inc. or AIDS Mobilization?
Editorial by Charles King
News of the AIDS Action Council's decision to host a fundraiser honoring Bush AIDS appointees and benefiting the AIDS Responsibility Project was zinging around the internet these last two weeks, despite what should have been a quiet holiday period. Some AIDS activists were calling for the resignation of AIDS Action Council Executive Director Marsha Martin. Others for AIDS Action Council members to resign from the organization unless its board forced Marsha to pull out of the event. Housing Works refrained from joining publicly in this particular fray, perhaps surprising some in the AIDS community who have come to see us as one of the more combative organizations, always willing to challenge friend and foe alike.
Our public silence didn't mean we lacked an opinion. We were mortified by the nature of the event and, even more, by the support and legitimacy being given to a heinous Big Pharma front organization. We held our peace on the public front because we do not believe that either of the two most common responses speaks to the heart of the problem. Now that the AIDS Action Council Board Chairs have written a letter withdrawing the organization's support for this event, we raise our voice to speak to what we believe is the real issue at hand.
If you speak with Marsha, as I did last week, she will articulate her belief that it is essential for AIDS Action to be at the Bush table to have input on policy decisions. She will also tell you that the only way to stay at the table is to embrace the Administration and avoid public criticism at all costs. Marsha will also be honest enough to tell you that one major reason her Board wants her to stay at the table is to ensure that funds continue to flow to AIDS Action's member organizations through steps like reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with wanting to see the AIDS dollars flow. For years, we have been fighting for new and increased funding streams for AIDS prevention and services, domestically and internationally. The question is, At what cost do we fight for these dollars? Is reauthorization of Ryan White Care really more important than speaking the truth about AIDS prevention? Is it worth cozying up to Big Pharma, knowing that millions of people living with AIDS and HIV are being denied treatment because of the profits being made off of non-generics, including 250,000 people here in our own country? Is it really worth it to avoid at all cost saying anything that might be interpreted as critical of the Bush administration and its all too often misguided AIDS policies?
The truth is that AIDS Action is only one of a number of organizations who have decided that acquiescence or, at minimum, silence is the necessary price of being a player with this Administration. Over the last six weeks, I have attempted to speak with the leadership of all of the national AIDS organizations to elicit their participation in the AIDS March this Spring. You would be surprised at the number of organizational leaders who won't even return my phone calls. Others have obfuscated the issue, saying that there need to be insider players distinct from those putting on pressure from the outside. (Of course, whenever someone makes this argument, you can guess which role they have chosen for themselves.) Some have been more honest, saying they fear endorsement of anything perceived as critical of the Bush administration will cost them access or funding.
The truth is that the effectiveness of the insider-outsider strategy has always been something of a myth. Insiders are generally most interested in their own interests, not in protecting those who are not invited to the table. And the most effective way to come to the table has always been to come with power, which means money, votes, or a mobilized community that has proven its willingness to take action. Interestingly enough, Martin Luther King, Jr. explicitly rejected the insider-outsider game. In the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" King explains that the whole point of direct action is to compel dialogue with those who insist on a monologue. It was his presence on the streets that gave King access and credibility in the White House. As King knew all too well, people who choose exclusively to be the insiders inevitably make the struggle more difficult for those fighting on the outside, because they provide those in power with an excuse not to dialogue with those who are creating the most discomfort.
The real question is whether those of us with institutional power bases are willing to risk the hard-fought wins AIDS advocacy has brought us. Are we willing to use the resources that people with AIDS fought for, to ensure that this Administration hears the truth? Or will AIDS mobilization amount to people living with AIDS and HIV fighting for their lives, over and against those of us who are determined to protect our institutional interests at all costs? The answer hinges on whether or not we are willing to accept the status quo. Not that it isn't vitally important, but is Ryan White reauthorization your sole measure of success? If your goal is institutional preservation and industry growth, the status quo is just fine. If, on the other hand, your goal is to bring an end to the pandemic, it is time for movement-building and mobilization -- time to take risks, time to take to the streets, time to demand that our elected officials provide real leadership to bring an end to this horrible plague.