Desecration Nation

Yes I know, we here at Drink Moxie have got a little lazy lately, spending too much time on other (paying) pursuits and not enough time watching commercials on behalf of you, the people, and letting you know what they tell us about ourselves.

I wish I could promise that we'll be back with some regularity, but I'm afraid that would be disingenuous. However, we're back for the time being to perform an important public service. In honor of the recent 234th birthday of our nation, I decided it was time to institute an award for the company whose marketing has most desecrated our country. I was going to call it the Benedict Arnold Awards until I realized that name has been recently co-opted by a right-wing blogger (to discredit the Democratic Congressmen who supported health care reform). Some other famous desecrationists (Roseanne Barr) came to mind, but I think that given this is a media award, one name rises to the top. So I give you the first ever (to my knowledge) Larry Flynt Awards. (If you're too young, or haven't seen the movie, look it up.)

The idea for this award came from two commercials that I recently saw, that you have probably seen as well if, like me, you've been watching any or all of the sporting events saturating the airwaves recently. While it might seem obvious that patriotism sells products, especially around July 4, I found that there are rare examples of it being done in an egregious way. Of course there are political ads that go too far, and countless car dealership ads featuring Uncle Sam or Barack Obama impersonators, but when it comes to nationwide mainstream advertising, usually the patriotism is a bit more subdued. For the requisite historical perspective, here's a commercial I found for RC Cola from the 90s:



Heavy on the "Go USA!" but otherwise not very remarkable.

Also in the not-nominated category is this commercial, that was originally made a few years back but has been running recently:



That one may seem only tangentially related to the subject matter. However, I include it because this next one, our first actual nominee, seems to have been made in direct response. (Footnote: online news has taught me that the "Here we go" campaign, by a firm called Cannonball, has replaced the "Drinkability" campaign, previously discussed, by DDB Chicago, which apparently was not working terribly well. I wonder why?)



Funny that Sam Adams seems not to have been invited to this party.

Our second and final nominee is this one, by Wieden + Kennedy.



Considering our nominees, which one does a better job at desecrating America? It might seem obvious at first, but take a moment to consider the evidence. The second spot seems more intelligently and tastefully produced (ignoring the fact that it uses music clearly evocative of Ken Burns' The Civil War in a setting meant to represent the Revolutionary War). But is it really more tasteful, or more realistic? What it actually does is perpetuate the idea that the Revolutionary War was a heroic victory of freedom over tyranny, guided by the hand of a godlike military genius, and not a bloody conflict that saw the deaths of many young and poor Americans, British and Germans, in which George Washington was frequently outmatched and out-strategized, and which was resolved as much as a result of geopolitical tensions as military prowess. It also ignores that fact that many of the patriots fighting for "freedom" were actually fighting for their right to retain slaves, but I don't necessarily fault them for leaving that out.

The first commercial, on the other hand, portrays the politicians who founded our nation as a bunch of fun-loving guys who liked to drink beer, which, of course, they mostly were (though they were decidedly not drinking Bud Light). Also, the first commercial is clearly meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek, while the second has an air of seriousness about it, as if they are really trying to associate the long struggle for American independence with an industry that is now best known for bringing our nation's economy to its knees. The worst thing that the first commercial has against it is that it is atrociously un-funny, which is not to be ignored. The second is much more enjoyable to watch, if one doesn't take it seriously.

So I leave it for you to decide, readers: Who should take the Flyntie?

And while you're thinking about it, ponder this: Is it just a coincidence that we're seeing these two commercials at this point in our history? Will it lead to a trend of more "patriotic" commercials that are at the same time historically-themed but historically-ignorant? Is the New Tea Party, also regarded as suffering from historical schizophrenia, starting to have an influence on mainstream advertising?

As always, we'll have to keep watching the airwaves to find out ...