"Child abuse and neglect offend the basic values of our state. We have a responsibility to provide safe settings for at-risk children and facilitate permanent placement for children who cannot return home"
About this Quote
Blunt’s language is built to feel morally unarguable, and that’s the point. “Offend the basic values of our state” doesn’t just condemn abuse; it recruits a whole public identity - a shared Missouri “we” - as the injured party. The move is quietly strategic: once harm is framed as an affront to core values, policy becomes less a debate over budgets and systems than a test of civic decency. If you dissent, you’re not disagreeing on methods; you’re drifting outside the community’s moral perimeter.
The second sentence shifts from outrage to governance. “We have a responsibility” is the classic politician’s bridge from sentiment to authority, but it’s also a pressure valve: it assures constituents that the state can act decisively in a realm where outcomes are messy and heartbreaking. “Safe settings for at-risk children” is intentionally broad. It evokes foster care, shelters, supervised placements, maybe expanded oversight - without committing to the costs, enforcement mechanisms, or the uncomfortable tradeoffs that come with intervening in families.
The phrase doing the heaviest lifting is “facilitate permanent placement.” It’s bureaucratic, almost soothing, and it reframes family separation as an administrative solution rather than a trauma. “Cannot return home” sounds clinical, but it contains a world of contested judgments: when reunification is considered impossible, who decides, and under what standards? In a political context - likely amid child welfare reform, high-profile neglect cases, or pressure on state agencies - Blunt’s intent is to claim moral clarity while keeping operational specifics safely offstage.
The second sentence shifts from outrage to governance. “We have a responsibility” is the classic politician’s bridge from sentiment to authority, but it’s also a pressure valve: it assures constituents that the state can act decisively in a realm where outcomes are messy and heartbreaking. “Safe settings for at-risk children” is intentionally broad. It evokes foster care, shelters, supervised placements, maybe expanded oversight - without committing to the costs, enforcement mechanisms, or the uncomfortable tradeoffs that come with intervening in families.
The phrase doing the heaviest lifting is “facilitate permanent placement.” It’s bureaucratic, almost soothing, and it reframes family separation as an administrative solution rather than a trauma. “Cannot return home” sounds clinical, but it contains a world of contested judgments: when reunification is considered impossible, who decides, and under what standards? In a political context - likely amid child welfare reform, high-profile neglect cases, or pressure on state agencies - Blunt’s intent is to claim moral clarity while keeping operational specifics safely offstage.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Matt
Add to List
