"But as I often say, terrorists won't check our party registration before they blow us up"
About this Quote
The line lands like a slap because it refuses the comforting fiction that danger can be neatly sorted into partisan bins. Harman’s phrasing is blunt, almost grimly casual: “as I often say” signals a practiced refrain, a politician’s go-to corrective for moments when the national security debate gets swallowed by culture-war scorekeeping. Then she drops the image that does the real work: terrorists “won’t check our party registration.” It’s dark humor with a purpose, invoking bureaucratic minutiae (party registration) against the total indifference of violence. The contrast is the point. Our internal labels feel decisive; to an attacker, they’re irrelevant.
The specific intent is coalition-building under threat: a call for unity, or at least for a truce, around counterterrorism and intelligence policy. Harman, a Democrat long associated with hawkish national security positions, is also insulating herself from the “soft on terror” stereotype by sounding tougher than the room. It’s an argument for seriousness, not just solidarity.
The subtext is less kumbaya than it appears. By implying that partisan divides are a luxury terrorists don’t recognize, she reframes dissent as potentially irresponsible. It pressures opponents to temper criticism: if you fight the security agenda too hard, you’re squabbling while the house is on fire.
Contextually, it fits the post-9/11 political landscape where fear became a governing language and bipartisan posture was both moral claim and tactical weapon. Harman’s line sells pragmatism, but it also disciplines the conversation: disagree if you must, it suggests, but don’t pretend the world will wait for our primaries.
The specific intent is coalition-building under threat: a call for unity, or at least for a truce, around counterterrorism and intelligence policy. Harman, a Democrat long associated with hawkish national security positions, is also insulating herself from the “soft on terror” stereotype by sounding tougher than the room. It’s an argument for seriousness, not just solidarity.
The subtext is less kumbaya than it appears. By implying that partisan divides are a luxury terrorists don’t recognize, she reframes dissent as potentially irresponsible. It pressures opponents to temper criticism: if you fight the security agenda too hard, you’re squabbling while the house is on fire.
Contextually, it fits the post-9/11 political landscape where fear became a governing language and bipartisan posture was both moral claim and tactical weapon. Harman’s line sells pragmatism, but it also disciplines the conversation: disagree if you must, it suggests, but don’t pretend the world will wait for our primaries.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Jane
Add to List



