"It's dishonest to say we're doing everything we can for our seniors when there is so much more we can"
About this Quote
The line is a polite grenade tossed into the complacent language of governance. Larson takes aim at the familiar political alibi: “we’re doing everything we can.” It’s a phrase designed to end arguments, not solve problems. By calling it “dishonest,” he doesn’t merely disagree with the policy status quo; he questions the moral character of the rhetoric that protects it. That’s the key move: shifting the debate from technical constraints to ethical accountability.
The intent is strategic. “Seniors” is one of American politics’ most guarded categories - widely respected, reliably sympathetic, and numerically powerful. Invoking them makes austerity sound cruel and indifference sound cowardly. Larson leverages that cultural immunity: if we’re failing seniors, we’re failing the people no one wants to be seen failing.
The subtext is a rebuke to scarcity theater, the performance where leaders insist their hands are tied by budgets, procedure, or “realism.” “So much more we can” is deliberately vague, because the argument isn’t over a single program; it’s over the posture of resignation. He’s implying that limits are often chosen, not inevitable - a matter of priorities, tax policy, and political will.
Contextually, this sits squarely in the perennial fights over Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug costs, and long-term care - arenas where incrementalism is sold as pragmatism and where “everything we can” often means “everything we’re willing to risk.” Larson’s sentence works because it indicts that gap between capacity and commitment, and forces listeners to ask an uncomfortable follow-up: if more is possible, why wasn’t it attempted?
The intent is strategic. “Seniors” is one of American politics’ most guarded categories - widely respected, reliably sympathetic, and numerically powerful. Invoking them makes austerity sound cruel and indifference sound cowardly. Larson leverages that cultural immunity: if we’re failing seniors, we’re failing the people no one wants to be seen failing.
The subtext is a rebuke to scarcity theater, the performance where leaders insist their hands are tied by budgets, procedure, or “realism.” “So much more we can” is deliberately vague, because the argument isn’t over a single program; it’s over the posture of resignation. He’s implying that limits are often chosen, not inevitable - a matter of priorities, tax policy, and political will.
Contextually, this sits squarely in the perennial fights over Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug costs, and long-term care - arenas where incrementalism is sold as pragmatism and where “everything we can” often means “everything we’re willing to risk.” Larson’s sentence works because it indicts that gap between capacity and commitment, and forces listeners to ask an uncomfortable follow-up: if more is possible, why wasn’t it attempted?
Quote Details
| Topic | Aging |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
