Conservatism Dbq

His demand that he is in the middle between Russia and France is what his map of Africa looks like (D3). Bismarck was most concerned with power politics on the European continent; his comments regarding imperialism seem somewhat ironic (POV). Careful treaties with native chiefs of Independent State of Congo were made between Mr. Henry M. Stanley and several soldiers having whole villages have been signed away to their Majesty (D6). This was seen as an anti-imperialist attitude because of cultural reasons, villages being signed away it was all negative. Economic negative attitudes are seen when the Resolution of the German Social Democratic Party Congress, 1900 speaks that World and colonial power is pursued for capitalist exploitation and for displaying military force which corresponds to the greedy desire of the bourgeoisie to invest its ever-increasing capital and to the desire for new markets which each country tries to usurp to itself. This had a negative attitude because it’s mentioning how colonial power only brings severe greedy consequences upon each country and should not be enforced. The resolution from the German Social Democratic Party Congress is probably a biased source since as socialists they would naturally condemn a capitalist agenda (D9).

European states were trying to maintain the old order in 1830. The liberals and the nationalism ideals began to break because of the domination of conservatism in all Europe. They raised in arms; in France liberals overthrew Charles X, establishing a constitutional monarchy. Three other countries attempted to left conservatism. Belgium rebelled and got independent from Dutch Republic.

The New Right has significantly revised the relationship between conservatism and tradition, however. The New Right attempts to fuse economic libertarianism with state and social authoritarianism. As such, it is a blend of radical, reactionary and traditional features. Its radicalism is evident in its robust efforts to dismantle or ‘roll back’ interventionist government and liberal social values. This radicalism is clearest in relation to the liberal New Right, which draws on rational theories and abstract principles, and so dismisses tradition. New Right radicalism is nevertheless reactionary in that both the liberal and conservative New Right hark back to a 19th century ‘golden age’ of supposed economic prosperity and moral fortitude. However, the conservative New Right also makes an appeal to tradition, particularly through its emphasis on so-called ‘traditional values’.

Radical Republicans, who identified as the anti-slavery and pro-reconstruction wing of the Republican party, were another key group driving transformations in the country during this time. They had a bold agenda: to punish the south for the Civil War, ensure the complete elevation of former slaves to the current standards of American society, and to prevent the Democrats from ever gaining another foothold in the south. To do this, they set out to pass the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The amendments forbade slavery in the United States, guaranteed equal protection under the law and citizenship to anyone born in the United States, and ensured the right to vote for all men over the age of 21, respectively. They also supported the Freedman’s Bureau,

It has been said by several historians that the second half of the nineteenth century was the ‘Age of Bismarck.’ In the mid 1800’s Bismarck provided dynamic leadership- a trait which had been lacking during the events of 1848-89. Ian Mitchell stated “Bismarck was everywhere.” However, there has been a considerable degree of debate concerning the role of Bismarck in the unification of Germany. Some argue that unification would have been inevitable and had nothing to do with Bismarck, although others argue that the unification was solely down to Bismarck’s role. There are differing opinions on whether Bismarck was a planner or an opportunist or whether he was merely just

The Liberal Nationalism that became the majority in Germany due to universal suffrage under Bismarck during the late 19th century witnessed a Kulturkampf. Kulturkampf, or a, “struggle over culture” emerged between the Protestant Liberal Nationalists and the Roman Catholic Church. Liberals associated Catholics with the Pope in Rome, and felt that they did not think for themselves, were backwards, undemocratic, and did the Pope’s bidding. Liberals also attributed Catholics with the absolute rule of monarchies. The Liberals alongside Prime Minister Otto Von Bismarck worked to limit the Catholic clergy’s influence in schools. Through the process of “Germanization” a German nationalist mission to remake Catholics in their own eye began soon

This tradition of conservatism is strongest in the UK and USA, where classic liberal ideas were strongest. Free trade in commercial affairs is seen as desirable, along with a competitive, self-regulating market economy.

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a German version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of “Bismarck’s individuality and his responsibility for the political development of the Empire” (Breuilly 172). Bismarck was known to support nationalism and patriotism, and he believed in the Burschenschaften or student organizations. He also believed in the concept of faith in power, more in ideas. Bismarck only cared for two things: Prussia and Prussian power, and he would do anything to obtain Prussian domination. Although Bismarck did not care for Germany, he was all for German Unification. Historians cannot decide if Bismarck’s legacy is positive or negative but they agree that he was a “brilliant and shrewd tactician who succeeded in postponing the problem of political mobilization for 60 years” (Breuilly 172). In Otto von Bismarck, some people saw a great man who was ahead of his time, while others saw nothing more than a bloodthirsty power monger, who wanted a united Germany to

Otto von Bismarck is widely known as the first modern politician. Because of this, his interpretation of conservatism is different and is the first of its kind. The reason Bismarck represents a new and different kind of conservatism is that unlike traditional conservatives, Bismarck is willing to adapt his views to fit the people's current needs. While Bismarck's methods can be considered traditionally conservative in his early days as a political leader, with things such as the Anti-Socialist Acts, by looking deeper and analyzing what he did later in life shows that he was a more modern conservative. Some examples of Bismarck’s modern conservatism were his restraint on letting Germany go to war with any other country, and his policy of separation of church and state. Compared to other leaders like Napoleon III, Bismarck had the ability to plan and invest in Germany’s future. Bismarck supported this by being able to change his views and ideas when it became necessary. Bismarck’s time was born when the Franco-Prussian war began. This is what led to Bismarck becoming so famous at the time, as his military victories were heard of all over

The political establishment during the Second Reich in Germany were successful in maintaining the political status quo between the years 1871 and 1918. It can be argued however, that they were successful in doing so through more than just a policy of moderate reform. During these years, Germany abided by a rigid constitution which allowed power to ultimately be firmly held in the hands of the Kaiser. A great sense of nationalism and patriotism also existed in Germany and the vast majority of the German population heavily valued the Kaiser. Furthermore, the constitution

Otto von Bismarck was the prime minister of Germany during the time of German unification, formerly the prime minister of Prussia. Bismarck struck quite the nationalist chord in the German peoples, convincing the southern German states to join the the northern ones. He was known as a hardcore conservative, however he was a practitioner of realpolitik, and was able to approve policies that appealed to different ideologies for the sake of the country. Otto von Bismarck’s specific brand of conservatism was different than classic conservatism in that Bismarck attempted to appeal more to the working class, and he had a good few liberal policies. However, Bismarck also had traditionally conservative ideas, such as suppressing opposing views.

Many believe that Prince Otto Edward Leopold von Bismarck, later known as just Bismarck, was the main reason for German unification. Bismarck was the first chancellor of this new country as Bismarck had changed 39 smaller states, into one large industrial power. The unification of Germany had a large impact on the balance of powers in Europe. Bismarck dominated Germany and European politics for nearly 30 years. However some historians argue that Bismarck was only this successful and powerful because of circumstances out of his control. Nationalism and liberalism were rising as an ideology, the decline of Austria had an effect and 1848 was nicknamed as a year of revolutions due to the amount of revolutions that took place also factored in, but at the heart of all these is Bismarck’s use of deception and realpolitik and manipulating situations to his advantage.

Bismarck was an unrivalled diplomat during his reign. His German Reich constitution of April 1871 allowed him to dictate the government on his own terms. However, the parliament only “had the power to initiate debate upon any point of his (Bismarck’s) policy, but neither he nor any other minister was responsible to the assembly for his actions" (T. A. Morris, p116). Furthermore, the constitution was designed to give the impression that

Liberalism and conservatism have been political ideas and thoughts from the very birth of our democracy. Their views and points of the government's role in a democratic society have changed over the years, but the basic ideas and principles have remained the same. There are many different degrees of liberalism and conservatism as almost anyone can be labeled. Some individuals are radical and extreme while others stand on more of a neutral territory, but the debates between the understood ideas of each group have continued throughout the history of the United States. We will take liberalism's Gary Doore and conservatism's Irving Kristol as modern day examples and compare and contrast the

As president, Bismarck led Germany into unification through his opportunism and his various policies. Charismatic yet aggressive by nature, Bismarck was known for his ability to seize opportunities and manipulate situations to his advantage. It is debatable whether or not Germany would have achieved unification under the power of anyone other Bismarck. In his 1996 book The Problem of the German Nation State, Wolfgang Mommsen said, “Bismarck’s policies- admirable or satanic... occupy centre stage.” This is particularly true for his infamous policy of “blood and iron”. Also, Bismarck’s diplomatic abilities are able to be seen when looking at his foreign policy of 1871 to 1890. Bismarck’s policies and opportunism are predominantly evident when looking at the Three Wars.