Despite opposition to the tsarist rule being illegal in Russia at this time, there were 3 significant parties which had one thing in common which was wanting to change the Tsarist regime. However their aims, methods and support bases were completely different. The first of the parties were the Liberals made up of a majority of middle class, these were the least radical, and their aim was to introduce parliamentary democracy similar to those in the USA, France and Great Britain. The second was the Social democrats, their support came from the working class and they based their party ideas on those of Karl Marx. Lastly, was the Social Revolutionaries, these were the most radical and whose support came from the peasants.
‘The modern conservative party is pragmatic not ideological’ discuss (30 marks) Conservatism, like many other political ideologies has different factions within it. Traditional conservatism, especially paternalist conservatism very much favours a pragmatic approach. this is the belief that behaviour should be shaped in accordance with practical circumstances and goals rather than principles, beliefs or ideological objectives, indeed Michael Oakshott specified that true conservatism should avoid adopting any sense of direction However with the introduction of the liberal new right under Thatcher and Keith Joseph, they envisaged the creation of a society of free individuals, with wide access to ownership of property and shares in industry and in which each individual was responsible for his or her own welfare, breaking the tradition of pragmatism within the Conservative party. Traditional conservatives have tended to avoid adopting fixed principles and have opposed political movements based on fixed principles. In fact Conservatism has often been described as chameleon like, in that it changes its appearance according to the dominant political environment at a given time.
Conservatives differ from each other by their views and to what extent they would be willing to go for their party beliefs. It is said for conservatives that for the farther to the right they are, the more committed and radical they are to the party. 17. What is the generic definition of liberalism? How do liberals differ from each other?
The limited nature of the revolution was one of the main factors which weakened prospects for democracy, when Ebert was trying to form a government he still had a problem that the radical communists were still looking to turn Germany into a communist state similar to the Soviet Union and thus to put down this rebellion and get support of the army he made an agreement with Groener. The agreement was that the army would support the government if the army and civil service were left unchanged. This was the main reason that democracy was irreversibly weakened, because the civil service and army generals were all right-wing conservatives providing a powerbase for the radical right. This limited democracy because the radical right thought that democracy was weak and indecisive, the radical right though was weakened because the radical left was way more powerful initially in post war Germany, but the radical right would help democracy until the radical left was no longer a threat and would act as ticking time bomb of support. This could have acted as a powerbase for the Kapp Putsch and the eventual rise of the Nazis.
the Conservatives. However the relevance of this tradition right and left battle between Labour and the Conservatives has declined in recent years for many reason raising question about the similarity of the two parties and seeing as they are the biggest two parties in UK politics it reduces the choice of major parties to vote for, for the electorate. Traditionally, the left and right divide has been portrayed as a battle between Socialism and Conservatism. Socialism has been traditionally been viewed as the ideology of the Labour party and Conservatism has traditionally been seen as the ideology of the Conservative. These two parties have developed policies on the basis of a vision of how they believed society should be organised.
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
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.
They didn’t get a majority government in 1910 like they did in 1906 which led them to think that social reform was the way to gain votes. Many politicians who came from modest backgrounds also wanted to “wage war” on poverty as they saw it as the scourge of modern day Britain and it was the governments job to fix
They preferred a pretty strict construction of the constitution and look down on Hamilton’s ideas for a national bank and saw them as unconstitutional. The party promoted states' rights and they were threatened by the supposed, the far too powerful tendencies of the Federalist Party which they had seen before with Great Britain. These Democratic Republicans favored Agriculture and opposed the tariffs that Hamilton had proposed; for these supporters mostly included skilled workers, small scale farmers, and plantation owners. So it is safe to say the majority of these types of supporters were vast in the southern frontier states as opposed to their rivals in the northeastern states who were more on the business side of things. Democratic Republicans all in all wanted things to remain the same in the U.S government because they felt that giving more power to the national government by way of national bank or tax would slowly get rid of the people’s voice in politics creating a rerun of the previous outcome with Great Britain.
This period saw the gradual strengthening of Prussia with the Zollverein and economic reforms. Also with the failure of the congress of Vienna, which was aimed to control the liberalist and nationalist ideas, Austria started suffering more problems as the Austrian leader was much more conservative about these ideas than Bismark, so the Austrians lost influence amongst the people. Futhermore, Prussia was in advantage because Bismark was much more popular than the Austrian leader. Bismark was more effective; the type of economic progress contented the majority of the middle classes. Kleindutch supporters saw in Prussia a more cohesive state, which was less archaic and more progressive economically.