Explain the three underlying ideologies of 19th centuries?
The political turmoil of the age represented a continuing struggle between seemingly wellentrenched conservative forces and the yearnings of an assortment of liberals and radicals who wanted to change the system in a variety of ways. Liberalism and nationalism sometimes went hand-in-hand in challenging the conservative establishment. In other instances, as in the case of German unification, nationalism became part of a conservative agenda. In still other cases, as conservatives realized they could not maintain the status quo forever; they compromised and even absorbed part of the liberal agenda.
Nineteenth-Century Conservatism: S Conservatives, such as Austria’s Prince Klemens von Metternich, were bent on maintaining the sanctity of traditional political institutions, particularly the monarchy. It was also their goal to maintain a balance of power in Europe in order to ensure a permanent peace. Traditionally they were supported by vested interests, such as landowners, manufacturers, merchants and the churches. Those interests, therefore, usually affected their economic and social policies. They seldom allowed freedom of the press or any serious political opposition, and were often brutal in suppressing dissent.
Nineteenth-Century Liberalism: Liberalism was a curse to conservatives, for it seemed synonymous with revolution. Hostile to practically every conservative institution, liberals did all they could to undermine the prerogatives of the monarchy, the aristocracy and the church. They promoted constitutionalism, the idea that government must be limited to specific powers by a written constitution. They also wanted representative, or parliamentarian, government; in that sense liberalism became synonymous with republicanism. This often led to demands for a constitutional monarchy as a first step toward a more a more satisfactory regime. Liberals also called for a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Above all, they proclaimed the sanctity of the individual and promoted the protection of individual rights – including property rights and personal freedoms. But they also felt that the right to vote should be restricted by property qualifications. In practical terms this limited vote to landowners and well-to-do businessmen and professionals. Liberalism thus became identified with the middle or upper classes, convincing the lower classes that it had little to offer. Early nineteenth-century liberals were adamantly opposed to government intervention in social and economic affairs. They believed that unrestricted private enterprise, an idea first advanced by Adam Smith, would result in greater productivity for everyone, not just the rich. As the century progressed, however, and as industrialism changed the nature of society, laissez-faire (hands off) economics gradually became a tool of businessmen in their quest to remain unfettered by government. At the same time, liberal concern for the individual brought a change in liberal attitudes toward government intervention. The industrial society had created conditions that seemed to destroy the dignity of the workers and that certainly did not require their bosses to be concerned for their heath or physical well being. In the name of the individual, therefore, liberals began to advocate government intervention in the economy for the purpose of promoting individual dignity and freedom. Conservatives began to then mistake liberalism with socialism.
Nineteenth Century Nationalism: Nationalism is a complex ideology; it has many diverse definitions and has been manifested in many ways. As it developed in the nineteenth century, it was based on the assumption that the peoples of a particular geographic area shared a cultural identity, as seen in their common history and, in particular, a common language. Nationalists attempted to make this cultural unity a political reality by defining state boundaries that coincided with the territory where each cultural group lived. This, of course, sounded good, but when empires such as Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire controlled vastly diverse peoples, each of whom chafed under the rule of foreign kings, nationalism could become perplexing and explosive. Nationalism and liberalism were sometimes thought of as synonymous because of the liberal emphasis on freedom and self-government. Unfortunately, some nationalists stressed difference between people to an extent that showed the seeds of antagonism. The modern term “chauvinism” is related to one of Napoleon’s soldiers, Nicolas Chauvin, who was known and later ridiculed for his excessive and belligerent patriotism. It was only a short step to a belief in national superiority. It was even a shorter step to theories of racial superiority and, from there, to justification of genocide, tragically exemplified a century later in German anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.