"The bottom line is that there is a lot more that could and should be done to help people with nutrition and exercise"
About this Quote
“The bottom line” is politician-speak that pretends to be blunt while carefully avoiding blame. Parris Glendening’s sentence is built like a spreadsheet summary: there’s a problem (“a lot more”), a moral nudge (“could and should”), and a safely agreeable solution space (“help people with nutrition and exercise”). No villains, no budgets, no enforcement, no industries named. That’s the point. It’s a line designed to travel across districts, donors, and news cycles without snagging on specifics.
The intent is to frame public health as both urgent and noncontroversial. Nutrition and exercise are culturally coded as common sense, almost apolitical. Yet the subtext is loaded: if “more” needs doing, what’s currently being done is insufficient; if people need “help,” individual choice isn’t the whole story; if it “should” be done, someone has been failing a responsibility. Glendening’s phrasing keeps all three implications while refusing to assign a target. That ambiguity is useful in a political context where the real levers of change - school lunches, urban design, healthcare access, food marketing, poverty - trigger ideological fights and corporate pushback.
Read in context of late-20th/early-21st-century governance, it echoes the era’s bipartisan pivot to “personal responsibility” language while quietly admitting structural limits. It gestures toward policy without committing to it: a permission slip for future initiatives, and a hedge against the accusation that government is either meddling too much or doing too little.
The intent is to frame public health as both urgent and noncontroversial. Nutrition and exercise are culturally coded as common sense, almost apolitical. Yet the subtext is loaded: if “more” needs doing, what’s currently being done is insufficient; if people need “help,” individual choice isn’t the whole story; if it “should” be done, someone has been failing a responsibility. Glendening’s phrasing keeps all three implications while refusing to assign a target. That ambiguity is useful in a political context where the real levers of change - school lunches, urban design, healthcare access, food marketing, poverty - trigger ideological fights and corporate pushback.
Read in context of late-20th/early-21st-century governance, it echoes the era’s bipartisan pivot to “personal responsibility” language while quietly admitting structural limits. It gestures toward policy without committing to it: a permission slip for future initiatives, and a hedge against the accusation that government is either meddling too much or doing too little.
Quote Details
| Topic | Health |
|---|
More Quotes by Parris
Add to List
