Just do it.

This phrase of blind obedience is so inextricably associated with Nike that it can hardly be read without hearing the empty-gymnasium echoes of Michael Jordan’s squeaky sneakers and bouncing basketball. But it’s also one of the most praised marketing slogans for its simplicity and impact. After all, it’s the embodiment of every capitalist’s dream: consumers who act on their own terms.

It’s no big secret that the nation’s top corporations are in bed with the government, so it should be equally unsurprising that they share notes when it comes to manufacturing public consent. But instead of a subconscious nudge to buy expensive fitness gear, what we get are empty, meaningless phrases that tell us to ignore the deeper complexities of political issues and jump straight to submissive action.

Of course, there always has to be the illusion of real action, because it’s a necessary precursor to selling the illusion of an American democracy. Instead of exposing the murky underbelly of merciless war crimes and unjust foreign policy, we’re given a clean, less-complicated phrase to print on a ribbon-shaped bumper sticker affixed next to the Ford logo: “Support our troops.” 

Really, the phrase couldn’t be more fitting for a society itching to apply the “un-American” label to anyone who unapologetically criticizes government actions. The conversation no longer revolves around the policy itself, but drifts off into some vacuous side note about criticizing the soldiers who are just as caught up in the whirlwind of power as the rest of us. 

To put forth a more recent example: Have you ever met anyone who was anti-life? Or anti-choice? Yet their opposites are the slogans for the divided political stances on abortion. The arguments are boiled down to one-dimensional hyperboles, making them completely impossible to contradict. The goal of any political leader is to downplay complexities and disagreements as much as possible.

But the problem isn’t that slogans are inherently insufficient at expressing complex ideas. In fact, slogans like Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Eat the Rich” and Occupy Wall Street’s “We are the 99 percent” are quite effective at starting a real conversation about class struggle. The difference between these slogans and “Support our troops” is that the latter doesn’t represent any substantive issue at all. It’s not a question of whether or not the public supports the troops, but rather, whether or not they support the policies that guide the troops. 

It’s a primary example of propaganda, and it prevents those in power from receiving any opposition from a better-informed public. When you control the conversation, you control public opinion. But this goes way beyond throwing meaningless phrases into the ring. Part of controlling the conversation involves controlling the main source of information for the public: the press.  

The argument that a free press is the antagonist of federal and corporate propaganda dissolves when you realize that funding for the nation’s top news sources (The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) comes from the nation’s top corporations. Just take a look at the New York Times homepage and find one ad that isn’t sponsored by a company on the Fortune 500 list. 

Understanding that the information you receive goes through a large, systematic filter is one thing, but finding an alternative, reliable resource is another altogether.