"You can bring down governments, you can do a lot of things that are in your own interests even though liberals will get very antsy when you start talking about it"
About this Quote
Power is doing the scary part out loud, then daring everyone else to pretend they didnt hear it. Tancredo frames politics not as persuasion or coalition-building, but as leverage: the capacity to "bring down governments" and "do a lot of things" because you can. The phrasing is bluntly transactional. "In your own interests" is the key tell - its not a shy appeal to the public good; its a wink at hardball self-preservation, the kind of candor that can read as honesty to supporters and menace to opponents.
"Liberals will get very antsy" is more than a jab. Its an alibi. He preemptively casts moral discomfort as mere temperament: squeamishness, anxiety, a nervous tic. That move does two jobs at once. It inoculates his side against criticism ("theyre just overreacting") and signals to his base that the real problem in politics is not the tactic, but the people who object to naming it. It turns ethical debate into culture-war theater.
The intent, in context, is to normalize coercive talk while keeping a layer of plausible deniability. He doesnt specify the mechanism - elections, shutdowns, parliamentary maneuvers, pressure campaigns - because specificity would invite accountability. Vagueness lets the statement function as a threat, a boast, and a recruitment pitch. If you already believe institutions are captured by the wrong people, then describing politics as a tool for taking things back sounds less like extremism and more like permission.
"Liberals will get very antsy" is more than a jab. Its an alibi. He preemptively casts moral discomfort as mere temperament: squeamishness, anxiety, a nervous tic. That move does two jobs at once. It inoculates his side against criticism ("theyre just overreacting") and signals to his base that the real problem in politics is not the tactic, but the people who object to naming it. It turns ethical debate into culture-war theater.
The intent, in context, is to normalize coercive talk while keeping a layer of plausible deniability. He doesnt specify the mechanism - elections, shutdowns, parliamentary maneuvers, pressure campaigns - because specificity would invite accountability. Vagueness lets the statement function as a threat, a boast, and a recruitment pitch. If you already believe institutions are captured by the wrong people, then describing politics as a tool for taking things back sounds less like extremism and more like permission.
Quote Details
| Topic | Vision & Strategy |
|---|
More Quotes by Tom
Add to List
