Quotes About Politics

In politics, I claim that progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are like tribes speaking different languages. The language that resonates with one tribe does not connect with the others. As a result, political discussions do not lead to agreement. Instead, most political commentary serves to increase polarization. The points that people make do not open the minds of people on the other side. They serve to close the minds of the people on one's own side.

Consider three goals that a political pundit might have. One goal might be to open the minds of people on the other side. Another goal might be to open the minds of people on the pundit's own side. A third goal might be to close the minds of people on the pundit's own side. Nearly all the punditry that appears in the various media today serves only the third goal.

As a social phenomenon, political discussions invite us to position ourselves relative to others. We want to raise our individual status in our own tribe, and we want to reduce the status of other tribes. By framing issues in terms of our preferred axis, we appear to accomplish both of these goals. We impress the people who agree with us, and we delegitimize those who disagree.

Political courage is not political suicide.

One of my movies was called 'True Lies.' It's what the Democrats should have called their convention.

I feel good because I believe I have made progress in rebuilding the people's trust in their government.

To restore the trust of the people, we must reform the way the government operates.

My fellow Republicans acted like they'd been punched in the stomach. "You have them on the ropes, go in for the kill!" they said. This was my first real taste of the new Republican ideology that any compromise is a sign of weakness.

Just when you think there's nothing to write about, Nixon says, 'I am not a crook.' Jimmy Carter says, 'I have lusted after women in my heart.' President Reagan says, 'I have just taken a urinalysis test, and I am not on dope.'

The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid.

We don't have an anger problem in American politics. We have a contempt problem. . . . If you listen to how people talk to each other in political life today, you notice it is with pure contempt. When somebody around you treats you with contempt, you never quite forget it. So if we want to solve the problem of polarization today, we have to solve the contempt problem.

We don't have an anger problem in American politics. We have a contempt problem. . . . If you listen to how people talk to each other in political life today, you notice it is with pure contempt. When somebody around you treats you with contempt, you never quite forget it. So if we want to solve the problem of polarization today, we have to solve the contempt problem.

Moral arguments beat economic arguments every time, because—whether we are liberal or conservative—we are all moral creatures who are encoded to value compassion and fairness.

There is a reason why so many social clubs ban the discussion of politics and religion: disagreements have ended friendships and started wars.

So when that woman in New Hampshire said that liberals are stupid and evil, she wasn't talking about me, but she was talking about my family. Without meaning to, she was effectively presenting me with a choice: my loved ones or my ideology. Either I admit that those with whom I disagree politically—including people I love—are stupid and evil, or I renounce my ideas and my credibility as a public figure. Love or ideology: choose.

Households headed by a "conservative" give, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a "liberal.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between an ordinary Bernie Sanders supporter and a Stalinist revolutionary, or between Donald Trump's average voter and a Nazi, is either willfully ignorant or needs to get out of the house more.

You see, whether or not we want to admit it, political contempt and division are what economists call a demand-driven phenomenon. Famous people purvey it, but ordinary citizens are the ones creating a market for it.

What I am not proud of is our increasing resistance to competing ideas, right here at home in our politics, in media, and on campuses. So how do we solve it? We need leaders who—while holding their own opinions—tolerate others', because they recognize that iron sharpens iron ideologically; that diversity in all forms is where our strength and unity are to be found.

Resolve to pay attention to ideas, not just politics.

James Madison, in the fourteenth Federalist Paper, warned that the "most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness.

In his farewell address, George Washington famously warned against "the baneful effects" of political enmity.41

This is a classic weaponization of values. It's not something that good or moral leaders should ever do.

But never once did he say that Jimmy Carter hated America, was a crook, or wanted to see the American dream die. He knew Jimmy Carter was a good man who loved his country—he just had, in Reagan's opinion, the wrong ideas for how to make America great again.