For most of us, conjuring concise and cogent catchphrases is nearly impossible. In fact, the skill can seem like the black magic of mystical mad men.
During the 1960s, the most influential of these Svengalis were the executives working in Madison Avenue advertising firms. By contrast, 2010's most effective mad men come from Main Street and are literally angry men -- specifically, the tea party crowd that is, according to new polls, more wealthy, more white, more male, more Republican and more motivated by racial resentment than the general population. And though their jeans and baseball caps are less stylish than Don Draper's suits and fedoras, these anti-government activists deserve recognition: They have crafted a motto as succinctly expressive and manipulative as the best Sterling Cooper innovation.
"I Want My Country Back" -- this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike's "Just Do It" on Ad Age's list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era's conservative backlash. Take a moment to ponder the slogan's phrase-by-phrase etymology:
"I Want" -- Humanity's most atavistic exclamation of selfishness -- and thus an appropriate introduction for a tea party motto -- this caveman grunt may end up being the epitaph on the nation's tombstone. America once flourished by valuing what "we" -- as in We the People -- need (food, shelter, infrastructure, etc.). Conversely, today's America teeters thanks to a Reagan-infused zeitgeist that reoriented us to worship whatever I the Person wants. High-income tax breaks, smog-belching SUVs, cavernous McMansions carved into pristine wilderness -- it doesn't matter how frivolous the individual craving or how detached it is from necessity. What matters is that the "I" now assumes an entitled right to any desire irrespective of its affront to the allegedly Marxist "we."
"My Country" -- In his quintessentially American ditty, Woody Guthrie said, "This land was made for you and me." It made sense. In a democracy, the country is We the People's -- i.e., everybody's. If, over time, our diversifying complexion and changing attitude creates political shifts, that's OK -- because it's not "my country" or "your country"; it's all of ours. Apparently, though, this principle is no longer sacred. Following two elections that saw conservative ideology rejected, tea party activists have resorted to declaring that there can only be one kind of country -- theirs.
"Back" -- To underscore feelings of grievance and nostalgia, the slogan ends with a word deliberately implying both theft and resurrection. In tea party mythology, "back" means taking back a political system that was supposedly pilfered (even though it was taken via legitimate elections) and then going back to a time that seems ideal. As one tea party leader told The New York Times: "Things we had in the '50s were better."
To the tea party demographic, this certainly rings true. Yes, in apartheid America circa 1950, rich white males were more socially and economically privileged relative to other groups than they are even now. Of course, for those least likely to support the tea party -- read: minorities -- the '50s were, ahem, not so great, considering the decade's brutal intensification of Jim Crow.
But then, that's the marketing virtuosity of the "I Want My Country Back" slogan. A motto that would be called treasonous if uttered by throngs of blacks, Latinos or Native Americans has been deftly sculpted by conservatives into an accepted clarion call for white power. Cloaked in the proud patois of patriotism and protest, the refrain has become a dog whistle to a Caucasian population that feels threatened by impending demographic and public policy changes.
As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.
David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota. This is his latest column for Creators Syndicate.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
This was done in 1999. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pgz6ZCqhtg
Looking at the chart,
What they estimated in 1999 for 2010 [estimated 300 million in the US] is slightly lower that what actually happened.
- That means the -real- conditions are WORSE than their estimates on that chart.
When he gets to the gumball demonstration bear in mind the large jar doesn't represent Mexicans.
It represents the people in the world that are WORSE OFF than Mexicans.
Because of illegal immigration from 1999 to present we've had to:
Build TWICE as many schools.
Build TWICE as many roads.
Build TWICE as many sewer plants.
Build TWICE as much about anything else.
Have twice as many cops and firemen and teachers. [Or leave areas under serviced.]
And use TWICE as many trees.
Anyone that thinks that isn't a significant load on our economy is a moron.
If you don't want every city in the US to become a giant LA Slum within ~40 years, then illegal immigration has to STOP NOW!
~
Link to just the chart.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/imagecache/fpage/files/cck_images/population.jpg..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmClBU7nA&NR=1
this led to increased long term investment rather than short term get rich quick schemes and finacial gimmicks, money for infrastructure, no massive govt debt and overall a much fairer economic environment for the middle class
In 2008, federal income tax receipts equalled 7.9% of GDP, notwithstanding the reduction in the top marginal tax rate (see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)
In 1955, federal government spending equalled 17.3% of GDP
In 2008, federal government spending equalled 20.7% of GDP (see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23)
Conclusion: The reduction in the top marginal tax rate has absolutely nothing at all to do with the massive government debt. Federal income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have increased!! Don't you think the debt might have just a little to do with spending?
Did you know that the poverty rate in the late 1950s was around 22% and had fallen to around 13% by 2008 - see pg 11 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
Did you know that around 63.4% of households had an income of below $50,000 (2008 dollars) in 1967? That had fallen to 49.6% by 2008.
Did you know that around 30.5% of households had an income of between $50,000 and $100,000 (2008 dollars) in 1967? That had fallen all the way to 29.8% by 2008.
Did you know that around 6% of households had an income of above $100,000 (2008 dollars) in 1967? That had risen to 20.5% by 2008.
I couldn't find figures going back to the 1950s, but I'm sure you get the idea. You can check it out yourself on page 29 of http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
All I can say is that a stagnant "middle class", a declining "lower class", a declining poverty rate and a rapidly expanding "upper class" seems pretty darn good (and fair) to me.
.
Howard Dean used essentially the same phrase 6 years ago ("I want my party back!" - and he may have added "And I want my country back too!" to it a couple of times) with nothing like the connotations which you choose to impute to it here. Tea Partiers are by no means the only ones expressing such sentiments these days, and they reflect the take-over of our country by corporations and the politicians who serve them more than the sentiments which you choose to single out above.
Had Obama even TRIED to carry through with his promises for 'change we can believe in' and 'an end to business as usual in Washington' there would be no wind in these sails. As it is, get ready for a major blow.
From whom?
Where did it go?
What did it look like?
How are you going to get it back?
Is it really your country?
Thus a once important intellectual movement (conservatism), characterized by precision and logic, has succumbed. It has become a collection of empty slogans, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."