September 18 Time magazine’s article titled “How Mitt Romney’s Luck Ran Out” introduced GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s observation covertly recorded at a Florida fundraiser to the effect that:
… the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes will never vote for him because they "believe they are victims" entitled to endless government support and will never "take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
It is followed by this sentence:
Not to generalize or anything. This, just days after Romney’s rash statement late on the night of Sept. 11 suggesting that the Obama Administration sympathized with the violent mobs in Cairo and Benghazi.
What does “Not to generalize or anything” mean? Doesn’t “Not to generalize” suffice? Is “or anything” necessary? Is this a common idiomatic phrase, or parenthesis?
In passing, I don’t find a verb that explains what “This” that follows “Not to generalize or anything” in the above excerpt. What is the predicate of “This”?
Best Answer
Normally, not to x or anything is followed by a but, like this:
Here, it is short for [I do/did] not [mean] to generalise, but... It is a caveat, and a warning that what you are about to do (or have just done) may be interpreted in a bad way.
In casual speech, or anything is often tacked on to make the generalisation seem less explicit, less important, as in: "I may be generalising here, or I may be doing something else—it doesn't matter anyway—, but...".
Using not to x or anything without a following but looks like sloppy writing to me for a serious article, which is probably part of the reason why it confused you: the generalising statement ought to follow, explaining the caveat—but no such statement follows here, at least not immediately. It is not a grave sin, but it's not exactly eloquent here. Most writers would only use that in a very casual context.
Based on the rest of the article, I believe the generalisation is supposed to be the writer's theory that "[m]ore recently, however, Romney’s luck has turned", as mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The statement by Romney about the 47 % is supposed to be an example supporting the theory. But at the same time it is probably a sarcastic quip referring to Romney's own generalisations in these quotations.
The this that comes immediately after is unrelated to the not to generalise: it refers to the 47 % statement, the example supporting the theory. It is short for something like this [was/happened], or [and notice how] this [was]. It is meant to make clear that there is a connection between the previous example and what follows, Romney's statement about Obama.