To what extent had the pressing political problems of the 1800s been solved by 1914? After Italy’s unification in 1870 there were immediate political issues facing the new united Italy that needed to be addressed. The government that was formed was incredibly unorganized and not many people knew who was in charge at times, not only this but many of the politicians in power were incredibly corrupt and would happily take bribes, launder money and other underhanded, dishonest actions which would have been frowned upon had people known. The new united Italy was a liberal state which was actually one of the first of its kind, the Liberals had managed to oust the ruling families of each individual state, the old aristocracy and most importantly the pope. However this “liberal” Italy was actually more conservative at heart, the country was a monarchy and not a republic.
Liberalism was drawn from the age of enlightenment in which many religious restrictions were broken in order for meritocracy to strive which allowed individuals to strive on their own basis. The main party that stands for liberalism within Britain is the Liberal Democrat party which is lead by Nick Clegg however parties such as Labour and the Conservatives have strong relations with Liberalism which is evident through their leadership style and manifesto proposals. One of the most leading styles of modern liberalism that is displayed in British politics at current times is the development of the welfare state which provides people with education and healthcare but also provides benefits for those who are unable to work for various reasons. The welfare state was originally introduced in 1911 as a result of a range of reforms due to investigation in to the living conditions of ordinary British citizens. The national insurance act was enacted by David Lloyd George and the liberal party and it meant that contributions were made to assist those who were unemployed or unable to work.
The political orientation of the researchers was liberal, and the research method was the mapping of social inequalities in educational outcomes using quantitative techniques to measure social mobility. Such an approach was 'liberal' in that inequality was opposed but its source was not, unlike the Marxists, located in the social structure. Modern societies were seen as inherently progressive and it was only archaic elements, such as class, that inhibits progress. Modification of these difficulties would produce restructure. The difficulty with this approach, as it later became clear, was that the problems identified by liberal sociologists set many educators to work in opposition to working class cultural practices.
However, other reasons also played a part. Concern over national security also played a part in persuading the Government that reforms were needed. It could be argued that British politics almost revolved around national efficiency and responding to the industrial and economical threat of Germany and America consequently leading to the reforms. The new Labour party promised social reforms and the Liberals were worried about losing votes. The Liberals knew they had to find a way of keeping the working class votes.
Jess Seng Mr.Nassida AP History 15 April 2012 Liberal or Conservative Liberals and Conservatives have some really unique qualities to them. Liberals tend to lean more towards Patriot ideals such as the rejection of nobility and organized religion, as well as the right to life, liberty, and property. Conservatives, like the Tories, believed there should be minimal, gradual change in the country and they supported monarchies. FDR and Hoover might not show signs of all these things, but the main ideas of each still linger in today’s political parties. The idea that Hoover was a Conservative and FDR a Liberal are in fact completely correct.
“Fascism also recruited admirers from the ranks of the political theorists who sought an alternative to the representative model of liberal democracy and a radical prescription against the alleged decline of western civilization” 36. “In central and eastern Europe, fascism was markedly racist and anti-Semitic. In Hitler's Germany the genocidal "Final Solution" was the consequence” 37. “The fundamental structure of fascism is sometimes taken to be an authoritarian, centralized state apparatus sustained” 38. “A revival of Latin American fascism is possible, perhaps in response to the swallowing up of national economies in globalization; violence will undoubtedly remain endemic” 39.
The 19th and 20th centuries were characterized by the more developed countries of Europe acquiring the land and controlling resources of undeveloped countries. This idea, called imperialism, can be defined as the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by establishing economic and political authority over other nations. The European powers saw imperialism as their right and duty to exert their superiority, while the indigenous people of the inferior areas resented the Europeans greed and unrightfully taking control. Western European countries and developed a variety of attitudes toward imperialism. Economic factors were a chief motivation for colonization to European countries.
Before the nation state became the dominant political form in the 19th century, monarchs often inherited a feudal patchwork of divided and overlapping sovereign entities, for example, provinces, duchies, and free cities, that claimed independent privileges against the power of the monarch. These sovereign entities were naturally the basis of the social and political power of pre-existing elites through which monarchs traditionally ruled. These elites posed resistance to enlightened despots as they sought to consolidate, and thereby amplify, powers of the state, including taxation, justice, and war-making. Beyond political arrangements, enlightened despots also sought to improve national economies that were often splintered into different customs and taxation zones, and weighed down by monopoly privileges of one sort or another. Once again, the contrast lay between backward, “feudal” division and modern rationalization and unification.
Also, Puritans were held to moral standard at all times whether private or public and that marriage was to be regulated by the state rather then religious sacrament. Following the state ruled matrimony, divorcement was permitted in acts of extreme wrongdoing by one spouse.. Politically, Puritans believed that religion put a restraint upon the government. The government should not allow one man to have more authority than God and that God's laws are held above the government.
Even if few people were holding all the power in the government, they would not have caused the empire to fall without a hammer to drive the nail in. Countries with dictators, one person holding all the power, have survived for decades. Christianity wouldn’t have toppled Rome. If the argument is that they no longer felt loyal to their country, than that isn’t going to be the cause of the destruction of an Empire. The only reason the military was too large and unsupported was because many of the taxpayers died of the plague.