a bad idea

I am referring to Rep. Patrick McHenry’s proposal to replace U.S. Grant on the $50 bill with Ronald Reagan.

First point: whether you love Reagan or hate him, plenty of people still hate him. The reason for that is clear– he is still too closely associated with an ongoing political faction. He has not yet stood the test of time as a President of historical magnitude. Look at the figures on existing currency: Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin. On coins you have Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR, Washington, Kennedy, and Ike.

I don’t see that Reagan belongs. Some would make the case that Kennedy was overrated as a President, but the fact is he’s not on a coin just for his actual work as President. He’s on a coin because he’s an international icon who met a brutal early death.

Second point: as a Grant fan, I am viscerally opposed to Reagan profiting at Grant’s expense. Whatever one might say on behalf of Reagan, one can say on behalf of Grant that his courage and military prowess saved the United States from disintegration, and that he did as much as anyone else to end legal slavery in the country– by force.

I just wrote to Senator Harkin to express my dismay. (I’m still registered in Iowa.)

Another thing that makes me a bit queasy is that McHenry would specifically choose Grant for removal. If one were going to replace one of the currency figureheads, the obvious choice would be Hamilton or Franklin: the odd men out as the only non-Presidents on the bills, despite their obvious accomplishments.

Grant is widely regarded as a failed President, yes, but everyone realizes he’s not on the $50 bill for his Presidency. Hence, I suspect that McHenry’s proposal is not just a pro-Reagan gesture, but also a sort of crass “the South will rise again” dig at the Union Army. Doubly annoying.

Plus, see how stupid this looks: