Stigma is certainly not to be underestimated, and ACT UP-style activism is very effective at countering it. That's one of the reasons I said that politics like ACT UP's would have been -- and would still be -- really beneficial for Cuba. You see, Cuba, unlike the USA, didn't have the problem of radical inequality of access to health care rooted in radical economic inequality when people first became aware of the problem of AIDS. Its main problem was lack of respect for the HIV positive (respecting what they want it done for them, rather than the state doing what it thinks is good for them and the rest of the population), which led to the state essentially quarantining them (the quarantine ended, and voluntary out-patient services are now available, but the problem of paternalism has not completely disappeared: Anne-Christine d'Adesky, "Cuba Fights AIDS Its Own Way," January 2003 <http://www.thebody.com/amfar/cuba_aids.html>).
The problem that the poor encounter in the USA, South Africa, etc. regarding health is different from the Cubans' and is at bottom rooted in radical inequality: though, here too, stigma reduction is essential, activism that is effective at countering it doesn't solve the problem for the poor.
On 2/13/07, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Yoshie + Patrick + Chuck
>
> With all due respect, Wojtek, there's no evidence that compelling the
> Clinton administration to issue an executive order pledging not to
> interfere with the SA attempt to reduce drug prices dimmed Al Gore's
> electoral fortune in 2000, is there?
>
> [WS:] That is not the point. The point is that splinter vote of the leftos
> who voted their individualistic conscience while loosing the bigger picture
> of social costs of that behavior led to Bush victory in 2000, stolen or not.
> The ACT UP act in question is just an exemplification of that approach to
> politics.
It seems to me that gay votes are usually overwhelmingly Democratic votes (was 2000 any different?), and identity politics activists are usually the first to discourage people from voting for a third party (are ACT UP activists an exception?). The argument goes like this: GLBTs, women, Blacks, etc. (to which list peoples in the South are sometimes added) can't afford to face a Republican administration, so voting for a third party is excersie of white male privilege (or something like that). (Third party activists have never presented a good argument against this one, IMHO.)
The Democratic Party, identity politics, and political theater are very much complimentary, even when Democratic politicians become targets of protests, for they tend to concede at least a little bit to activist demands, even just symbolically (like meeting with activists) and deliver a little occasionally (as in the case of the 1997 Medicines Act in SA). I suppose in your opinion that is all there is to politics here and seeking a way out is futile and therefore silly. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>