44 I CHRONICLESnLetter From SouthnCarolinanby Clyde WilsonnAIDS and Public MoralitynThe AIDS plague should be approachedntemperately because, like thenKennedy assassination, it is one ofnthose universally frightening phenomenanthat is likely to ignite the pool ofnvulgarity, hysteria, and kookery thatnlie just below the surface, among thenhigh as well as among the low. Havingncasually followed the pronouncementsnof the government and media on thisnissue, I had been bothered by a mildnnagging sense of distortion, disproportion,nand disingenuousness. I had noticednthis and passed on, for we allnautomatically edit the information wenreceive from the official press. And,nalas, we have come also to take forngranted the Reagan administration’snuncertain trumpet, a persistent backgroundnstatic created by the opportunists,nrootless ideologues, and saboteursnthe President has chosen as his instruments.nViewing recently a televised pressnconference by one of these instruments.nSurgeon General Koop, I wasnable to put in focus what I had foundnunsettling in the official sources reportingnon the AIDS epidemic. ThenSurgeon General’s performance onnthis occasion was virtuoso. He wasncalm, detached, factual, succinct, andninformative, exactly as he should havenbeen. The false notes were in what wasnimplicit rather than what was overt. Inhad the sense that in the course of annapparently frank presentation, thenpoints that were most important, to menat least, were being preempted rathernthan discussed.nLeast among these false notes wasnthe blithe assumption that society (presumablynthe government) is obligatednto assume the projected costs of “care”nCORRESPONDENCEnfor the afflicted. Perhaps we must, butnit does not seem to me self-evidentnwhy this should be. And what exactlynis meant? That we are without discussionnand decision obliged to place annopen-ended burden on our labor andnour children’s patrimony to providenheroic treatment and optimum comfortnfor persons who are doomed, innmost cases by their own acts, is annassumption that needs more in the waynof supporting argument. This is, innfact, merely a subspecies of the normalnliberal delusion that resources cannsimply be created by the governmentninfinitely. What about diversion ofnresources from the more deserving ornthe less hopeless? Indeed, what aboutnthe rights of the medical personnelnwho, after all, are entitled to be free ofninvoluntary servitude? The SurgeonnGeneral is right to warn of impendingneconomic problems, but his framingnof the issue tends to convert a toughnmanagerial question into an unexaminednclaim against the decent partnof society.nI am disturbed also by the recurrentnemphasis on the prediction that AIDSnmay be about to descend in epidemicnproportions on the “heterosexual”npopulation. (Note the terminologynwhich makes the deviant and the normalnequivalent.) Since our official informationnis all carefully pruned ofnqualitative judgment, it is difficult tonknow exactiy what the apparent statisticalnincrease of the infection beyondnthe high-risk groups signifies. But asnfar as we can grasp at this point, itnwould seem it is confined, like allnvenereal diseases, primarily to thenmost depraved part of the populationnwhich is in contact with the high-riskngroups.nIt is right that we should want tonhelp our fellow creatures, howeverndepraved, but there is no use denyingnthat there are limits to what we cannaccomplish, individually or socially,nin saving persons of legal age who arennnbent upon self-destruction. However,nfrom the emphasis that is placed by thenmedia and bureaucrats on the dangernwhich the “heterosexual” populationnfaces, one gets the impression that wencan momentarily expect an epidemicnoutbreak to descend mysteriously uponnthe populations of Our Lady of thenSacred Heart or the East CarolinanChristian Academy. I have a suspiciousnmind, which our forefathersnconsidered a virtue in a republicanncitizen, but could this be a ploy tonfrighten the public into immense expendituresnto save the affected populationnor to devise means to prevent thenhigh-risk groups from suffering in thenfuture from the consequences of theirn”life-style”? Or to remove the stigmasnfrom abominable behavior by suggestingnthat “it could happen to anyone”?nIf these suspicions are justified, thennthe Surgeon General’s zeal to thrustncondoms upon grade-schoolers is anpiece of gratuitous tyranny.nIn ancient times and among primitivenpeoples, groups were held responsiblennot only for their explicit acts (asnwhen the Romans put to death ornenslaved rebellious tribes) but also fornthose less tangible transgressionsnwhich were thought to have offendednthe gods. Our more immediate forefathersnprogressed to a more reasonablenand humane way of life in whichngroups were not blamed for the sins ofnindividuals but individuals were heldnto be rationally responsible for theirnacts and the consequences thereofn(Such an assumption was an implicitnsine qua non of democratic government.n)nWe have now progressed to a situationnin which neither individuals orngroups are held responsible for anything.nWhether it is crime, AIDS,ncorruption, or economic backwardness,nno one is to blame; instead, wenhave all been victimized by some disembodiednsocial “problem.” (Thoughngroups as such cannot be held respon-n