Skip to content

Carroll Quigley on the Ropes… Bill Clinton: New-look GOP makes Bush look liberal


Yahoo News puls this funny from the AP wires

“Bill Clinton: New-look GOP makes Bush look liberal”

Clinton, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Minneapolis, said there was no mistaking that Republicans have tacked hard right and questioned whether former President George W. Bush would fit in among the party’s candidates this year.

“A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal,” Clinton told an enthusiastic crowd at a downtown hotel as he campaigned for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton.

Wow.  Who knew?  Carroll Quigley and “progressives” in both parties.  And the dilemma…

Bush? ...a statist? ...a progressive?

. . .

“Approximately the same basic policies.”

“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. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” – quoth Carroll Quigley.

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… indeed.  Buried in the mischief is the idea of right vs left, of two morally balanced but competitive ideologies, though it isn’t at all the scale or framework.  The language of the debate has been perverted by Euro-socialist perspectives.

The (metaphorical) plot thickens:  Let us take but one abuse of the term democracy.  Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democratie – Liberty – has often been mistranslated as democracy, implying that liberty and democracy are interchangeable.  Tocqueville knew that two wolves and a sheep deciding democratically what’s for lunch was no liberty, that mob rule becomes what he called “tyranny of the majority.”  A Frenchman of the 19th century understood such things from direct experience.

. . .

Miss Me Yet? Yes, Sir.

. . .

Liberty and Tyranny

We must re-frame the debate into terms that represent the real argument. (We’ve discussed the problem of Dyslexia Politica here earlier.) Do we choose Liberty, or do we accept some variation of Tyranny? Mark Levin has written a classic of this era on the subject.  In this framework, what is a “moderate”?  Someone who chooses a middle ground between freedom and slavery?

Examine the question of our response to foreign social structures, such as communism or sharia.  Frameworks such as ‘Right and Left‘ and  ‘extreme and moderate‘ become obsolete, atavistic, silly.

Liberty; self-governance itself is the ultimate moderate condition.

Barry Goldwater reminds us that

extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Quigley’s “approximately the same basic policies” nonsense is falling apart under pressure from the Tea Party response. They get it. Quigley is on the ropes and slumping fast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: