"I'm always a little cautious, there's a few amendments that are out there that I think could do some damage, so I've been more concerned about over regulating, going too far"
About this Quote
Caution is doing double duty here: it’s framed as prudence, but it’s also a strategy for keeping the status quo intact. Don Nickles’ line reads like the classic Washington pre-buttress: begin with a mild, almost folksy admission (“always a little cautious”), then pivot to an unnamed threat (“a few amendments…could do some damage”) that never has to be specified. The vagueness is the point. By refusing to identify which amendments or what “damage” looks like, the speaker invites listeners to supply their own worst-case scenario while maintaining plausible deniability.
The subtext is less about careful lawmaking than about policing the boundaries of reform. “Over regulating” and “going too far” are coded phrases in late-20th-century conservative rhetoric, especially in fights over campaign finance, labor rules, environmental standards, or gun restrictions: the premise is that government action is more likely to harm than help, and that the greatest risk lies not in under-correcting but in correcting at all. It’s a rhetorical inversion that turns inaction into responsibility.
Context matters because Nickles comes from an era when “amendments” often meant late-stage legislative changes that could force tough votes or shift a bill’s coalition. Casting amendments as dangerous lets leadership and aligned interest groups argue for “clean” bills and controlled outcomes. The sentence is essentially a permission slip for restraint: it signals to allies that he’ll resist add-ons, and to skeptics that he’s defending them from an excess that hasn’t happened yet.
The subtext is less about careful lawmaking than about policing the boundaries of reform. “Over regulating” and “going too far” are coded phrases in late-20th-century conservative rhetoric, especially in fights over campaign finance, labor rules, environmental standards, or gun restrictions: the premise is that government action is more likely to harm than help, and that the greatest risk lies not in under-correcting but in correcting at all. It’s a rhetorical inversion that turns inaction into responsibility.
Context matters because Nickles comes from an era when “amendments” often meant late-stage legislative changes that could force tough votes or shift a bill’s coalition. Casting amendments as dangerous lets leadership and aligned interest groups argue for “clean” bills and controlled outcomes. The sentence is essentially a permission slip for restraint: it signals to allies that he’ll resist add-ons, and to skeptics that he’s defending them from an excess that hasn’t happened yet.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Don
Add to List






