The 1830s Cartoon That Explains Today's Tea Party

Sometimes a historical document comes along which seems to reach across the centuries and achieve an almost timeless resonance. While doing research on the English anti-slavery movement I came across such an item in the form of an early 1830s political cartoon satirizing the English anti-slavery movement. What is striking is how, in one image, it encapsulates the complexities of a strain of conservative populism that has been an important force in U.S. and global politics (albeit in dramatically different ways) for a long, long time.

First, here is the cartoon in question (clicking on the link you can go to a page that allows for zooming in closer on the image):

Before going into detail, a few more words about the idea of "conservative populism." As Michael Kazin, one of the leading scholar of the topic, explains in his book The Populist Persuasion, conservative populism premises itself on the defense of the great "middle" of American society. These are the people and families who "paid America's taxes, fought its wars, and upheld the ideal of economic independence." While not by definition white, throughout U.S. history and to this day, that middle has, sometimes more expressly than others, been defined as white Americans.

The spark for initiating populist uprisings comes when the middle is threatened by forces of insecurity, whether they be direct material challenges to the "middle" economically and politically or focus more on abstract notions of identity (social, racial, political, etc). What distinguishes right-wing populism lies in its emphasis on threats from both "above" and "below." Progressive and left-wing populism focuses overwhelmingly on dangers from above, particularly emanating from the business classes. As Kazin describes, conservative populism sees both threats from "above," consisting of "a tiny elite that lived off the labor of others," along with a related danger from below, made up of "a larger group whose poverty seemed perpetual and whose behavior appeared servile, undisciplined, and childlike."

All of these themes are expressed in this one image. On the left side we find a hard-working, white middle or working class English family, crushed by taxation and debt. The man's attentive wife laments their situation, questioning "What [probably meaning "why] must an industrious and honest man starve in a country like this?" Meanwhile, the man decries his situation, bemoaning the fact that his plight (and of those like him) does not receive the same care and attention from elites as does that of the slaves. He notes that people like himself can get no help, "unless I draw a cart harnessed like a beast and get fed by the Parish." Meanwhile, the obviously affluent abolitionist chides the white workers for not recognizing how well off they are, and for not caring more deeply about the plight of the slaves. Finally, to the right, a group of slaves merrily dance in the background and those foreground seem both slothful and by no means in dire straits (they are well-fed and clothed for example)

Anything seem familiar? It is all here: the snide, wealthy liberal elites who care more about the undeserving (and racially different) than they do about the dignified common (read: white) middle and working classes. The beset upon, earnest white working-class family struggling to be independent and productive. And finally, in the image of the "happy slaves," the racialized "other" who represent social inferiors, yet who still receive all of elite society's sympathy and assistance.

All of this I believe is present in the current conservative movement. Besides the obvious racism of some elements of the Tea Party, for much of the movement there seems to exist an undercurrent of resentment not totally unlike the cartoon above. This feeling, for example, helps explain how so many Tea Party activists can sincerely proclaim the need to roll back government (even to pre-New Deal days), while seeing no problem with big government programs like Medicare and Social Security. The problem is not the existence of such programs, but the fact that to the Tea Party, the liberal elites care more about helping those who do not contribute to society than looking out for the interests of the majority. Take this exchange from Matt Taibbi with several Tea Party activists (bolded text is my emphasis):

"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."

"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"

"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."

I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

It is essentially the same message as the cartoon: I deserve assistance because I am a model citizen, yet the elites who spend our taxes and have the power in society spend all their time helping the undeserving "other."

How do we deal with this? In future posts I hope to talk more about these racial dimensions. I should note that this comparison is not supposed to dip into territory somehow suggesting the Tea Party is pro-slavery. Nor do I think most of the movement is racist, not in the way most people still think about that term. Having a more honest dialogue about racism could be a small part of the solution. Then there is the issue of making a populism which unites people more than it divides them. That my friends, represents the ultimate question (and thus one I will try to pick at in some small way, another time).