Talking Points Memo posted a campaign ad for Rick Barber, a Tea Party-aligned Republican running for Congress in Alabama. In the ad, Barber first speaks briefly to George Washington about taxes. Then he turns to Abe Lincoln and makes a comparison between funding social services and slavery. The screen then flashes photographs of slaves, prisoners in Communist work camps, and Nazi concentration camps…because paying taxes and those historical events are all basically the same, you know:
Aside from the trivialization of some of the most horrendously cruel acts against humans in modern history, it’s rather ironic that Barber says, “We shed a lot of blood in the past to stop that, didn’t we?” I understand there were many conflicting allegiances in both the North and the South during the Civil War; I have ancestors who owned slaves and sided with the Confederacy and others who fought for the Union. You certainly can’t paint all Southerners with a broad brush. However, it still seems odd to have a guy running for office in a state that seceded from the nation, whose platform emphasizes opposition to social programs that disproportionately help non-Whites (that is, Whites are the majority of recipients, but non-Whites are represented at rates higher than their proportions in the U.S. population as a whole), co-opting the anti-slavery position, which certainly wasn’t a mainstream attitude among Southern conservatives at the time. [Note: I am not implying that opposing social programs is the same as slavery, but only that because the discourse around opposition to them is so often racialized — think the “welfare queen” stereotype — that it makes a jarring companion to associations with ending slavery.]
In another re-writing of history, the ad ignores the following (from the TPM post):
…Lincoln was a lifelong champion of the traditional Whig policies of “internal improvements” — that is levying taxes, usually through tariffs, to fund infrastructure projects throughout the country, and incorporating the principle of central banking. In addition to prosecuting the Civil War, Lincoln’s administration put all of those policies into effect, as his Republican Party’s political coalition was built upon the foundation of the northern Whigs.
Also, Lincoln was president when Congress passed the first income tax, implemented to raise money for the Civil War (U.S. Treasury):
When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year.
Here’s a letter from the Treasury Secretary to President Lincoln recommending someone for the new position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Library of Congress):
It’s a great example of the re-writing of, or ignoring huge parts of, history (which certainly both Democrats and Republicans do) to suit current political positions. Lincoln is useful as a symbol, not as a complex figure whose policy positions (including ambivalence about ending slavery) actually matter.
Related posts: MTV PSAs reference Holocaust, PETA’s Holocaust on Your Plate ads, romanticizing picking cotton, different ways of remembering national tragedies, Mammie souvenirs, Black women tend to White women, and the corporate plantation.
Comments 29
Niah — June 29, 2010
I couldn't help but giggle looking at the zombies..errr.. I mean "supporters" on the last few frames of his ad. "Join us".
Anonymous — June 29, 2010
"However, it still seems odd to have a guy running for office in a state that seceded from the nation, whose platform emphasizes opposition to social programs that disproportionately help non-Whites (who are more likely to be poor), co-opting the anti-slavery position"
Who is it who is trivializing slavery, again?
Slavery != not supporting social programs that happen to help minorities.
MissaA — June 29, 2010
What gets me is the supreme arrogance that it require to put his platform in the mouths of dead presidents.
Bellevue — June 29, 2010
The anti-slavery position wasn't mainstream anywhere at the time.
vrses — June 29, 2010
Is he saying that paying taxes to pay for things that he, essentially, doesn't use is slavery? So...I own a house, but I don't have kids, but my property taxes are going to support schools...is that slavery? What about the fact that I've never had a fire at my home or needed the police to directly intervene for me? Aren't those government funded entities? I've never had to use a county hospital or gone to some of our local parks...also slavery?
anonymousss — June 29, 2010
I find it interesting that you say their interpretation involves "co-opting" and "re-writing" history. This seems to be a criticism, so presumably you think your history does not involve co-coopting or rewriting.
This is an odd position for a sociologist, since sociologists are usually hostile to the idea that there's such a thing as a non-ideological interpretation of history.
It's a pretty brazen claim to say that opposition to welfare programs is "co-opting" anti-slavery history, while support for them presumably is not. Does your interpretation of history say that cutting welfare is equivalent to slavery?
Amanda — June 29, 2010
Let's not forget, MOST recipients of welfare and other social services are poor whites.
George — June 29, 2010
Ending slavery may have been a difficult political prospect, but Lincoln's moral position was not ambiguous in any way that I can see. I especially like his second inaugural address:
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." "
el.j — June 29, 2010
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
Dragonclaws — June 29, 2010
What does the letter say? I can't read that handwriting, and the transcription link on the source page is dead.
el.j — June 29, 2010
This is just me trying to decipher:
I respectfully recommend the appointment of George L. Boutwell, formerly governor of Massachusetts, as commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The important duties [discharged?] in this office demand the highest obtainable ability and integrity. Having carefully considered all the names suggested I find no one whose [looks like "clearer" but that makes no sense] unites these qualities in a higher degree.
With the greatest respect, yours truly, Abraham Lincoln.
el.j — June 29, 2010
Sorry, that's George S. Boutwell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Boutwell
el.j — June 29, 2010
And also, sorry, it's "to the President" from the Treasury Secretary, my bad.
mercurianferret — June 29, 2010
gwen - I'm surprised that you ran this one, and I, for one, applaud your choice of using it as an example of selective re-writing of history. I think that, combined with an analysis linked to O'Brien's 2010 paper, "But I'm No Bigot: How Prejudiced White Americans Maintain Unprejudiced Self-Images", one could see how the Tea Party actually are supporting (quite openly) bigotry of all sorts, but can still (strangely, imho) think that they aren't bigots.
I watched the video to the end, and thought, that the imagery was very reminiscent of the tenor of nationalism that I found bilous: using that imagery and the tune of the national anthem to conjure up an image of a valiant soldier facing the hordes of the world... when (to me at least) that "horde" includes me and many of the people that I think are sane.
Co-opting Abe Lincoln and the Fight Against Slavery » Sociological Images « Firesaw — June 29, 2010
[...] paying taxes and those historical events are all basically the same, you know: via thesocietypages.org Categories [...]
Michaela — June 30, 2010
While I am not pleased with Barber, I do not really see where he is neglecting Lincoln's views as stated in the OP. In the advertisement, Barber complains about the levying of taxes for bailouts and welfare, while the information about Lincoln discusses infastructure (which is collectively used). Honestly, you really don't see welfare spending by the state or nation until 1932.
Heather — June 30, 2010
Speaking of things from the Library of Congress, have you all ever seen the American Memory Project? You can search for all kinds of stuff the LoC has digitized, including images from historic advertisements. In particular, the ads for slave auctions have a horrifying kind of interest to them.