"One of the problems with a candidate like Bob Kennedy, and his brother before him, was that people assumed they didn't need contributions"
About this Quote
Charisma is expensive, and Pierre Salinger is puncturing the fairy tale that it pays for itself. His line about Bob Kennedy and "his brother before him" points to a uniquely American political delusion: that glamour can substitute for infrastructure, and that moral narrative can replace the grubby mechanics of fundraising.
The intent is corrective, almost managerial. Salinger, a Kennedy aide who lived inside the machine, is warning that celebrity candidates generate a dangerous kind of confidence among supporters. If the candidate seems inevitable, supporters treat money like someone else's problem. The subtext is sharper: admiration can be passive. People confuse emotional investment with material commitment, as if attending a rally, telling a friend, or simply believing hard enough counts as a contribution.
Context matters. The Kennedys weren't just politicians; they were a brand with inherited wealth, media magnetism, and a mythic storyline. That aura flips normal political logic. A lesser-known candidate needs donors to feel needed; a famous one triggers the bystander effect. Everyone assumes the campaign is flush because the candidate looks rich, connected, and omnipresent. Salinger is also quietly acknowledging a structural vulnerability in the Kennedy mystique: the very qualities that draw crowds can soften the urgency that turns crowds into cash.
It works because it’s a backstage line. Not inspirational, not accusatory - just the kind of deflating truth operatives trade when the cameras are gone. In a single sentence, Salinger turns "hope" into a logistical problem, revealing how easily politics confuses visibility with viability.
The intent is corrective, almost managerial. Salinger, a Kennedy aide who lived inside the machine, is warning that celebrity candidates generate a dangerous kind of confidence among supporters. If the candidate seems inevitable, supporters treat money like someone else's problem. The subtext is sharper: admiration can be passive. People confuse emotional investment with material commitment, as if attending a rally, telling a friend, or simply believing hard enough counts as a contribution.
Context matters. The Kennedys weren't just politicians; they were a brand with inherited wealth, media magnetism, and a mythic storyline. That aura flips normal political logic. A lesser-known candidate needs donors to feel needed; a famous one triggers the bystander effect. Everyone assumes the campaign is flush because the candidate looks rich, connected, and omnipresent. Salinger is also quietly acknowledging a structural vulnerability in the Kennedy mystique: the very qualities that draw crowds can soften the urgency that turns crowds into cash.
It works because it’s a backstage line. Not inspirational, not accusatory - just the kind of deflating truth operatives trade when the cameras are gone. In a single sentence, Salinger turns "hope" into a logistical problem, revealing how easily politics confuses visibility with viability.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Pierre
Add to List
