"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers"
About this Quote
Quigley isn’t just taking a swing at partisan theater; he’s trying to delegitimize the very expectation that parties should offer voters a clean ideological choice. Calling the idea “foolish” and pinning it on “doctrinaire and academic thinkers” is a rhetorical feint: he frames principled opposition as naive, even childish, so that managerial consensus can pose as maturity. The insult does double duty. It flatters the reader as worldly (not stuck in the seminar room) while quietly moving the goalposts from democratic contestation to elite coordination.
The intent, in context, tracks with Quigley’s larger reputation as a historian of power networks and institutional continuity. Mid-century American politics, especially in the Cold War “vital center,” often prized stability over ideological volatility; moderation became a civic virtue, and sharp alternatives were treated as risks to order. His phrasing leans into that sensibility. “Perhaps” is the tell: it pretends the Right/Left split is merely a speculative, overly neat taxonomy, not a real axis of conflict over labor, race, foreign policy, and social welfare. By reducing disagreement to an academic affectation, he makes it easier to argue that both parties can and should serve the same underlying program while rotating personnel and rhetoric.
The subtext is anti-populist in the strict sense: too much choice is dangerous because it empowers mass movements. Quigley is sketching an ideal system where parties act less like competing visions and more like a controlled valve - different styles, shared commitments, minimal disruption. Whether you read that as sober realism or as a blueprint for cartel politics depends on how much you trust the people versus the managers.
The intent, in context, tracks with Quigley’s larger reputation as a historian of power networks and institutional continuity. Mid-century American politics, especially in the Cold War “vital center,” often prized stability over ideological volatility; moderation became a civic virtue, and sharp alternatives were treated as risks to order. His phrasing leans into that sensibility. “Perhaps” is the tell: it pretends the Right/Left split is merely a speculative, overly neat taxonomy, not a real axis of conflict over labor, race, foreign policy, and social welfare. By reducing disagreement to an academic affectation, he makes it easier to argue that both parties can and should serve the same underlying program while rotating personnel and rhetoric.
The subtext is anti-populist in the strict sense: too much choice is dangerous because it empowers mass movements. Quigley is sketching an ideal system where parties act less like competing visions and more like a controlled valve - different styles, shared commitments, minimal disruption. Whether you read that as sober realism or as a blueprint for cartel politics depends on how much you trust the people versus the managers.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|---|
| Source | Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time — Carroll Quigley, 1966. |
More Quotes by Carroll
Add to List
