"Democrats can't get elected unless things get worse - and things won't get worse unless they get elected"
About this Quote
It lands like a political Mobius strip: Democrats need decline to win, but decline supposedly arrives only after Democrats win. Kirkpatrick’s line is engineered to feel like a trap door under the opposition, compressing an entire ideology into a self-fulfilling suspicion. The elegance is in the circularity. If you accept the premise, Democrats are disqualified before they speak: prosperity proves they’re unnecessary, hardship proves they’re culpable.
The specific intent is less prediction than inoculation. In the late Cold War realignment that Kirkpatrick helped shape, Democrats were often cast by conservative hawks as soft on defense, indulgent about government, and too willing to manage society from Washington. Her formulation anticipates a familiar campaign move: when conditions deteriorate, blame the out-party’s philosophy anyway; when conditions improve, claim the in-party’s stewardship made the out-party irrelevant. Either way, the same conclusion stands.
Subtext does the heavier lift: it suggests Democrats are not merely wrong but structurally dependent on failure, like a business model that requires crisis. That implication turns policy disagreement into moral psychology - they don’t just misjudge incentives, they secretly need misery. It’s a hard-edged piece of delegitimization dressed as logic.
Context matters, too. Coming from a diplomat and intellectual combatant of the Reagan era, the quote doubles as geopolitical argument: a warning that domestic liberalism and global weakness are linked. The line’s power is its portability; it fits on a bumper sticker, but it also smuggles in a worldview where political opponents aren’t alternate stewards of the same system. They’re the system’s saboteurs.
The specific intent is less prediction than inoculation. In the late Cold War realignment that Kirkpatrick helped shape, Democrats were often cast by conservative hawks as soft on defense, indulgent about government, and too willing to manage society from Washington. Her formulation anticipates a familiar campaign move: when conditions deteriorate, blame the out-party’s philosophy anyway; when conditions improve, claim the in-party’s stewardship made the out-party irrelevant. Either way, the same conclusion stands.
Subtext does the heavier lift: it suggests Democrats are not merely wrong but structurally dependent on failure, like a business model that requires crisis. That implication turns policy disagreement into moral psychology - they don’t just misjudge incentives, they secretly need misery. It’s a hard-edged piece of delegitimization dressed as logic.
Context matters, too. Coming from a diplomat and intellectual combatant of the Reagan era, the quote doubles as geopolitical argument: a warning that domestic liberalism and global weakness are linked. The line’s power is its portability; it fits on a bumper sticker, but it also smuggles in a worldview where political opponents aren’t alternate stewards of the same system. They’re the system’s saboteurs.
Quote Details
| Topic | Sarcastic |
|---|
More Quotes by Jeane
Add to List
