"And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd"
About this Quote
Scheuer is doing a neat two-step: he bows to democratic legitimacy, then yanks the conversation back to first principles. The opening clause, “if that’s what the American people want,” performs deference to the voter-as-sovereign. It’s also a subtle challenge, because it implies the public can only “want” something if it’s been allowed to hear it, debate it, and metabolize the consequences. Policy by consent requires speech by permission, and he’s arguing that permission has gotten stingy.
The real payload is in his framing of taboo as theater. By calling the notion of “too sensitive” or “too dangerous” “absurd,” he’s not just defending free expression; he’s indicting a political culture that treats discussion as a security risk. That’s a familiar move from national-security insiders who’ve watched classifications, euphemisms, and “we can’t talk about that” become tools of narrative control as much as protection. “Sensitive” becomes a moral alibi: it sounds responsible while quietly narrowing the range of permissible questions.
There’s also an implicit rebuke of elite gatekeeping. Scheuer’s tone suggests that the public can handle hard truths, and that the real danger lies in pretending otherwise. The subtext is that silence is not neutral; it tilts outcomes. If certain topics can’t be aired, then policy defaults to the preferences of the people already in the room - officials, contractors, media filters - rather than the people in whose name it’s done.
Read in context, it’s less a civics lecture than a warning: democracies don’t just fail from bad decisions; they fail from decisions made without honest arguments.
The real payload is in his framing of taboo as theater. By calling the notion of “too sensitive” or “too dangerous” “absurd,” he’s not just defending free expression; he’s indicting a political culture that treats discussion as a security risk. That’s a familiar move from national-security insiders who’ve watched classifications, euphemisms, and “we can’t talk about that” become tools of narrative control as much as protection. “Sensitive” becomes a moral alibi: it sounds responsible while quietly narrowing the range of permissible questions.
There’s also an implicit rebuke of elite gatekeeping. Scheuer’s tone suggests that the public can handle hard truths, and that the real danger lies in pretending otherwise. The subtext is that silence is not neutral; it tilts outcomes. If certain topics can’t be aired, then policy defaults to the preferences of the people already in the room - officials, contractors, media filters - rather than the people in whose name it’s done.
Read in context, it’s less a civics lecture than a warning: democracies don’t just fail from bad decisions; they fail from decisions made without honest arguments.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List
