"We need responsible regulations, not regulations that have gone wild. For example, the EPA has a rule that is going to be implemented Jan. 1, 2012, where they're going to begin to regulate dust. That's right, dust. It's called PM 2.5. That is focusing on the wrong thing"
About this Quote
“Regulate dust” is a deliberately ridiculous frame, and Herman Cain knows it. The line is built to make bureaucracy sound like slapstick: the government, out of control, turning its attention from real threats to the stuff on your windowsill. By pausing for the punchline - “That’s right, dust” - Cain turns a technical policy discussion into a kitchen-table insult. It’s not an argument so much as a vibe: exasperation at experts, suspicion of agencies, and a promise that common sense has been replaced by paper-pushing.
The subtext is classic anti-regulatory populism filtered through business language. “Responsible regulations” is the olive branch, a way to avoid sounding purely anti-government. “Gone wild” supplies the villain. He’s not attacking environmental protection outright; he’s attacking the legitimacy of the people who define what counts as a risk. That matters because PM 2.5 isn’t household dust in the everyday sense - it’s fine particulate pollution linked to serious health outcomes - but the rhetorical move depends on collapsing that distinction. If you can make the target sound petty, you don’t have to litigate the science.
Contextually, this lands in an early-2010s conservative media ecosystem where the EPA was a dependable symbol of overreach and where “job-killing regulation” was a shorthand for elite indifference to working people. Cain’s intent is to reassign moral priority: the “wrong thing” isn’t pollution, it’s governance that feels remote, pedantic, and unaccountable.
The subtext is classic anti-regulatory populism filtered through business language. “Responsible regulations” is the olive branch, a way to avoid sounding purely anti-government. “Gone wild” supplies the villain. He’s not attacking environmental protection outright; he’s attacking the legitimacy of the people who define what counts as a risk. That matters because PM 2.5 isn’t household dust in the everyday sense - it’s fine particulate pollution linked to serious health outcomes - but the rhetorical move depends on collapsing that distinction. If you can make the target sound petty, you don’t have to litigate the science.
Contextually, this lands in an early-2010s conservative media ecosystem where the EPA was a dependable symbol of overreach and where “job-killing regulation” was a shorthand for elite indifference to working people. Cain’s intent is to reassign moral priority: the “wrong thing” isn’t pollution, it’s governance that feels remote, pedantic, and unaccountable.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Herman
Add to List
