"The shell fishing industry represents a major part of Louisiana's economy"
About this Quote
A sentence like this looks bland on purpose. Coming from Bobby Jindal, it’s the kind of technocratic, frictionless phrasing that signals competence and claims neutrality while quietly loading the room with stakes. “Represents a major part” is cautious language: not an oath, not a promise, not even a number. It lets a politician acknowledge vulnerability without committing to the messy business of choosing winners, regulating industries, or confronting the forces that imperil coastal livelihoods.
The intent is straightforward: anchor policy talk in bread-and-butter economics. Shell fishing is not framed as heritage or ecology; it’s framed as “industry” and “economy.” That matters in Louisiana, where debates about coastal erosion, pollution, hurricane resilience, and energy development are rarely just environmental. They’re fought as arguments about jobs, exports, and who gets protected when the water rises.
The subtext is coalition maintenance. By elevating shell fishing as “major,” Jindal courts a familiar triangle: coastal communities that depend on shrimp and oysters, business interests that prefer market language, and voters primed to treat economic impact as the highest civic metric. It also sidesteps more contentious moral language: worker precarity, disaster accountability, and the way different industries (including oil and gas) intersect with the health of wetlands and fisheries.
Contextually, this line fits the post-disaster political script Louisiana has lived with for decades: translate local life into economic necessity so assistance, regulation, or investment can be justified to skeptics. It’s less poetry than positioning, designed to make coastal policy sound like fiscal common sense rather than a fight over responsibility.
The intent is straightforward: anchor policy talk in bread-and-butter economics. Shell fishing is not framed as heritage or ecology; it’s framed as “industry” and “economy.” That matters in Louisiana, where debates about coastal erosion, pollution, hurricane resilience, and energy development are rarely just environmental. They’re fought as arguments about jobs, exports, and who gets protected when the water rises.
The subtext is coalition maintenance. By elevating shell fishing as “major,” Jindal courts a familiar triangle: coastal communities that depend on shrimp and oysters, business interests that prefer market language, and voters primed to treat economic impact as the highest civic metric. It also sidesteps more contentious moral language: worker precarity, disaster accountability, and the way different industries (including oil and gas) intersect with the health of wetlands and fisheries.
Contextually, this line fits the post-disaster political script Louisiana has lived with for decades: translate local life into economic necessity so assistance, regulation, or investment can be justified to skeptics. It’s less poetry than positioning, designed to make coastal policy sound like fiscal common sense rather than a fight over responsibility.
Quote Details
| Topic | Business |
|---|
More Quotes by Bobby
Add to List
