"I recognize that virtually every company that comes in here has a perspective. It's often not difficult to understand why they have the perspective that they have"
About this Quote
A bureaucrat's shrug, dressed up as neutrality. Charles James is staking out the posture of the reasonable gatekeeper: he "recognize[s]" bias everywhere, yet presents himself as untroubled by it. The key word is "virtually" - a lawyerly escape hatch that signals sophistication without naming exceptions. It's the language of someone trying to look clear-eyed while keeping the room calm.
The repetition of "perspective" does real work. He doesn't say "agenda", "self-interest", or "pressure campaign". "Perspective" sounds legitimate, even healthy, like a contribution to a pluralistic process. By framing corporate influence as a set of viewpoints rather than a set of incentives, he sanitizes lobbying into something closer to conversation. That softening matters because it shifts the moral center: the issue isn't whether companies are pushing for advantage, but whether their angle is understandable.
Then comes the second sentence, which lands like a wink: "often not difficult to understand why". This is the subtext of Washington or any regulatory corridor where everyone knows the game. He's not condemning companies for advocating; he's normalizing it as rational behavior. It's an implicit message to critics - relax, nothing mysterious is happening here - and to industry - you're predictable, and we can manage you.
Contextually, this reads like testimony, an interview, or an oversight moment where the speaker must acknowledge potential conflicts without accusing anyone outright. It's a classic institutional move: concede the existence of interests, translate them into "perspectives", and keep the system's legitimacy intact by implying that motives are transparent, therefore acceptable.
The repetition of "perspective" does real work. He doesn't say "agenda", "self-interest", or "pressure campaign". "Perspective" sounds legitimate, even healthy, like a contribution to a pluralistic process. By framing corporate influence as a set of viewpoints rather than a set of incentives, he sanitizes lobbying into something closer to conversation. That softening matters because it shifts the moral center: the issue isn't whether companies are pushing for advantage, but whether their angle is understandable.
Then comes the second sentence, which lands like a wink: "often not difficult to understand why". This is the subtext of Washington or any regulatory corridor where everyone knows the game. He's not condemning companies for advocating; he's normalizing it as rational behavior. It's an implicit message to critics - relax, nothing mysterious is happening here - and to industry - you're predictable, and we can manage you.
Contextually, this reads like testimony, an interview, or an oversight moment where the speaker must acknowledge potential conflicts without accusing anyone outright. It's a classic institutional move: concede the existence of interests, translate them into "perspectives", and keep the system's legitimacy intact by implying that motives are transparent, therefore acceptable.
Quote Details
| Topic | Business |
|---|
More Quotes by Charles
Add to List
