Political Paradox Quotes

It is fascinating to watch politicians come up with 'solutions' to problems that are a direct result of their previous solutions. In many cases, the most efficient thing to do would be to repeal their previous solution and stop being so gung-ho for creating new solutions in the future. But, politically, that is the last thing they will do.

The revival of the Right is as extraordinary as it would be if the public had demanded dozens of new nuclear plants in the days after the Three Mile Island disaster; if we had reacted to Watergate by making Richard Nixon a national hero.

Only Nixon could have gone to China. Anyone else would have been criticised from the Right.

Liberalism, austere in political trifles, has learned ever more artfully to unite a constant protest against the government with a constant submission to it.

Democracy is like a totalitarian.

Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office. I'm only half joking

America is conservative in fundamental principles... but the principles conserved are liberal and some, indeed, are radical.

Americans hate Congress but can't help ourselves from re-electing its members over and over again.

It continues to defy explanation why liberals who theoretically love liberty, equality, tolerance and moderation, should find so much to despise in their own country, which represents the fullest expression of those virtues anywhere on the globe.

How do the same evangelicals who incessantly force-feed us their morals and family values manage to overwhelmingly support someone like Donald Trump?

This is the way I think about politics: We want two diametrically opposed things from a politician. On one hand we want them to be bastions of moral integrity, perfect people, saints. And on the other hand, we want them to be effective leaders.

The American people are rhetorically Jeffersonian and operationally Hamiltonian.

The stronger Hillary is, the weaker she is. The more she seems like a likely presidential winner, the more difficult the senate race becomes in New York. It's perfect.

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Ted Cruz is the Schroedinger's cat of politicians. He is both eligible and not eligible to be president.

This is the Democratic paradox: You want so much to run America and yet you seem not so fond of Americans.

It's not necessarily the most compelling thing for a liberal like myself to be making an impassioned plea for the divine rights of kings and for observing the hierarchy of order, of class and authority.

The Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. No one can make head nor tail of them and they never are seen twice in the same place.

Never trust anyone who calls himself a libertarian socialist. They're bound to be deeply confused, at best.

A non-Communist premier with Communist ministers would be like a woman trying to stay half pregnant.

There isn't any finer folks living than a Republican that votes the Democratic ticket.

The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater.

I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I'm a great believer that you can't have too conservative a President nor too liberal a Supreme Court. So I'm a walking contradiction. I believe that you should try to really protect people's rights in every way, and also, people should be allowed to do what they do.

I'm a national security liberal, which I tell people because it's meant to sound absurd.

When Conservatives crusade against government while they are trying to be appointed to head the government, I think that's weird!