Matt Iglesias at Vox, Meteor Blades at Daily Kos, they all love Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.
Given that our currency has heretofore been reserved for founding fathers or ex-presidents, anything that overthrows convention must be, by definition, progressive. And liberals hold dear the dogma that anything progressive must be, by definition, good.
Therefore, taking Andrew Jackson, 7th president of the United States, off the $20 must be a good thing to liberals. Because honoring white, male historical figures is against the Zeitgeist, Jackson had to be replaced by a black woman. It makes perfect sense in the feel-good P.C. pleasure centers that liberals obsessively stimulate.
So Harriet Tubman will get the nod on the $20. Personally, I have no bias one way or the other on this–the money is worth the same. But I do have some observations.
- Changing the $20 bill is a waste of time and money. The $100 is the most counterfeited bill in the world. Ben Franklin was a womanizer, an imbiber, and is currently the face of the hip-hop culture of violence. Why waste money on the $20, which is used primarily by Americans and rarely stays in a wallet for more than a day, when the $100 is desperately–and permanently–in need of more anti-forgery security?
- We should change the $100 instead. It’s the only bill where more are used outside the United States than domestically. That way, we could show how progressive America is to everyone overseas AND the added benefit of making North Korea print fake $100’s with Tubman’s face on them.
- Harriet Tubman was a Republican and a devout Christian. Jackson was a Democrat. So these liberals are perfectly fine pulling a Democrat president off a bill and replacing him with a conservative Christian Republican. That’s just fine with me.
- Jim Gehraghty noted the most awesome reason of all to go with Tubman: she carried a gun.
We need this. We need this as a nation. pic.twitter.com/lg2emqQwzw
— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) April 20, 2016
But I still think it should have been the $100.