Politics & Power Quote by Mike Johanns

The line is less a warning about terror than a bureaucratic spell meant to turn anxiety into appropriations. Johanns, speaking as a politician and policy steward, keeps the language deliberately procedural: “priority,” “protecting,” “funding,” “necessary.” Those words don’t just describe action; they pre-empt argument. If something is a “priority for our nation,” resisting it starts to sound unpatriotic. If the goal is “protecting our food supply,” skepticism looks reckless. And if the money is “necessary,” the budget fight is framed as math, not ideology.

The most telling move is the tight coupling of terrorism and agriculture. Food is intimate, daily, and nonpartisan; “terrorist acts” is visceral and politically radioactive. Put together, they produce a special kind of consent: fear routed through the grocery aisle. Post-9/11 America learned to treat “security” as a master key for policy expansion, and “food supply” security offered a particularly effective bridge between homeland defense and rural-state interests. It suggests a threat that is everywhere and nowhere, a scenario hard to falsify and therefore easy to fund.

Johanns also leans on presidential authority as a shield. “This president has said…” is a cue to read the policy as settled at the top, not contested in the middle. The subtext: the administration is vigilant, Congress should bankroll it, and the public should equate spending with safety. It’s crisis rhetoric in soft focus, engineered to make the funding line sound like the only responsible ending.