"There is a tremendous amount of support for the approach we have taken, which again is to base our decisions on risk analysis and thoughtful scientific process"
About this Quote
“Risk analysis” and a “thoughtful scientific process” are doing double duty here: they’re not just methods, they’re shields. Mike Johanns, speaking as a politician, reaches for technocratic language that sounds neutral, procedural, and hard to argue with. It’s a familiar move in modern governance: when decisions are likely to anger someone, you launder them through the vocabulary of expertise.
The first half of the line is the tell: “a tremendous amount of support.” That phrase isn’t evidence; it’s a preemptive legitimacy claim, a way of declaring consensus before anyone asks who, exactly, supports it and who doesn’t. Then comes “again,” a small word that hints at repetition under pressure. He’s been challenged, so he reiterates the frame: we’re not improvising, we’re following a process.
What makes the quote work politically is how it collapses values into metrics. “Risk analysis” implies quantifiable tradeoffs, a rational calculus rather than a moral or economic choice. But risk is never just scientific; it’s also about which harms are tolerated, by whom, and for whose benefit. In regulatory contexts Johanns often dealt with - agriculture, food safety, disease control - “science-based” talk can signal seriousness while also narrowing the debate to what can be measured, sidestepping questions about transparency, corporate influence, or uneven impacts on consumers and farmers.
The intent is reassurance. The subtext is authority: trust us, because we’ve delegated judgment to “process.” The context is contested policy, where sounding clinical is a way to stay in charge of the narrative.
The first half of the line is the tell: “a tremendous amount of support.” That phrase isn’t evidence; it’s a preemptive legitimacy claim, a way of declaring consensus before anyone asks who, exactly, supports it and who doesn’t. Then comes “again,” a small word that hints at repetition under pressure. He’s been challenged, so he reiterates the frame: we’re not improvising, we’re following a process.
What makes the quote work politically is how it collapses values into metrics. “Risk analysis” implies quantifiable tradeoffs, a rational calculus rather than a moral or economic choice. But risk is never just scientific; it’s also about which harms are tolerated, by whom, and for whose benefit. In regulatory contexts Johanns often dealt with - agriculture, food safety, disease control - “science-based” talk can signal seriousness while also narrowing the debate to what can be measured, sidestepping questions about transparency, corporate influence, or uneven impacts on consumers and farmers.
The intent is reassurance. The subtext is authority: trust us, because we’ve delegated judgment to “process.” The context is contested policy, where sounding clinical is a way to stay in charge of the narrative.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Mike
Add to List
