Nike's latest vacuous advice: 'Believe in something'

By Richard Kirk

Fox Sports commentator Jason Whitlock appeared on Tucker Carlson's program Tuesday to discuss Nike's use of Colin Kaepernick as the face of its 30th anniversary ad campaign. Plastered under the magnified eyes of Kaepernick, the initial ad provided this advice to its potential customers: "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

Whitlock perceptively noted that Nike has recently been in the PC doghouse for its alleged mistreatment of women, blacks and especially for its use of Asian "slave labor" to manufacture the company's shoes. The adoption of Kaepernick as a PR symbol was, in his view, an attempt to mollify the company's critics while also appealing to the political vanity of execs who grew up in the '60s-'70s counterculture and who seem to think a Twitter mob actually represents something approaching majority sentiment.

I suspect Whitlock is correct on all fronts, but I would like to add to his analysis a point about Nike's explicit philosophical advice: "Believe in something." It's a slogan that meshes seamlessly with Nike's long-standing hortatory injunction: "Just do it." Neither command is prescriptive except for the necessity of "believing" or "doing" something. In this case, Nike's commercial acumen corresponds perfectly with the vacuous pop-cultural requirement that individuals should "stand up for what they believe." Action, passion and commitment to "something" – nothing in particular, mind you – is what youngsters are challenged to aspire to by their corporate mentor.

Nowadays even adults in America are virtually incapable of articulating positive values – what once were called "virtues." Ask a group of individuals what is important, morally speaking. What do you think they will say? "Be kind"? "Be honest"? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Fat chance! What they will say, almost everywhere and always, is that people should "respect their morals" or "live by their beliefs" or "be true to their values" or a thousand other self-referential phrases that contain not a single positive moral obligation.

During an honors assembly several years ago a school headmaster gave an address in which he asked students what words they would like to have engraved on their tombstones. The first suggestion, a suggestion he eagerly embraced, was the declaration that the deceased had been "true to his beliefs." Thirty seconds of Socratic dialogue would have revealed the utter inadequacy of this formulation.

Was it OK that Charles Manson was "true to his beliefs" or that Stalin "stood up for what he truly thought"? (It seems to excuse anything nowadays if one "truly" believes it.) Was Mao not such a bad guy for killing millions if "in his heart" he thought what he did was right? More to the point, were his victims spared significant suffering as a result of the chairman's ideological integrity? Is it not the case that people can and frequently do have views that are destructive, invidious and wrong? As usual, no such dialogue took place.

From an advertising perspective non-specific commands are clearly preferable to injunctions that require a good deal of effort. Consider Plato's quartet of virtues: temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. Combine those objectives with these words from Confucius: "At 50 I understood the Decree of Heaven; at 60 my ear was atuned; at 70 I followed by heart's desire without overstepping the line." The idea that wisdom and integrity are goals that require a lifetime of effort puts the kibosh on the consumer-friendly notion that adolescents who've had their first sociology class are suddenly possessed of profound insight or that professional athletes whose understanding of the world hardly extends beyond their personal experience and media-derived images have a firm grasp of reality.

Unfortunately, for the last half-century we have turned over the business of moral education to media personalities and commercial giants – electronic counterparts of the old traveling salesman, a figure unattached to the moral grid of community life who could seduce the farmer's daughter, skip town and leave his victim and her family to deal with whatever unpleasant consequences might ensue. (Murphy Brown becomes a single mother on TV. Overwhelmed single mothers and fatherless kids struggle in real life.)

No wonder so many folks speak in vacuous phrases about believing in "something" or "just doing it." Traditional virtues forged in a grid of community responsibility have been exchanged for "values" promulgated by folks whose desire to maximize sales and boost their careers stands in direct conflict with the assumption of moral obligation for the messages they send out. All you need is passion and an objective, they announce. Reading, reflection, experience, patience and dedication to truth are optional. Moreover, following this advice might mean "sacrificing everything" – unlike Kaepernick, who has made millions, not counting the advertising deal.

By the way, the effect your personal beliefs have on family, neighbors and the larger society isn't something included in the Nike formula. Figuring that out would take way too much effort and isn't commercially viable.

Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book "Moral Illiteracy: 'Who's to Say?'" is also available on Kindle.