History Quotes / PoliticalIdeologies

-> ''Democracy, as the sagacious Creator/{{Aristotle}} had observed, was the government of the mass of the people, who were, on the whole, poor. [[CaptainObvious The interests of the poor and the rich, the privileged and the unprivileged, are evidently not the same]]; even [[PatrioticFervor if we assume that they are or can be]], the masses [[NotInThisForYourRevolution are rather unlikely to consider public affairs in the same light]]...This was the basic dilemma of nineteenth century liberalism...devoted as it was to constitutions and sovereign elected assemblies, [[{{Hypocrite}} which it did its best to sidestep by being non-democratic]], i.e. by excluding the majority of male citizens of state, [[StayInTheKitchen not to mention the totality of their female inhabitants]], from the right to vote and to be elected...What indeed, would happen in politics when the masses of the people, ignorant and brutalized, unable to understand the elegant and salutary logic of Adam Smith's free market, controlled the political fate of states?...Politicians might resign themselves to prophylactic [[TheMoralSubstitute extensions of the vote while they, rather than some extreme left]], could still control it. This was probably the case in France and Britain. Among conservatives there were cynics like [[Usefulnotes/OttoVonBismarck Bismarck]] who had faith in the traditional loyalty -- or, as liberals might have claimed, [[HumansAreMorons the ignorance and stupidity]] -- of a mass electorate, calculating that universal suffrage [[HoistByHisOwnPetard would strengthen the right rather than the left]]. But even Bismarck [[TheChessmaster preferred to run no risks]] in UsefulNotes/{{Prussia}} (which dominated the [[UsefulNotes/ImperialGermany German Empire]]) where he maintained a three-class franchise strongly skewed in favour of the right...Manipulation in the crudest sense was still easy. One might, for instance, [[MovingTheGoalposts place strict limits on the political role of assemblies]] elected by universal suffrage. This was the Bismarckian model, in which the constitutional rights of the German parliament (Reichstag) were minimized. Elsewhere second chambers, [[AristocratsAreEvil sometimes composed of hereditary members]] as in Britain, voting by special (and weighted) electoral colleges and other analogous institutions put brakes on democratized representative assemblies. Elements of property suffrage were retained, reinforced by educational qualifications ... Such 'fancy franchises' as the British called them, were reinforced by the useful device of gerrymandering or what Austrians called 'electoral geometry' -- the manipulation of constituency boundaries to minimize or maximize support for certain parties...[[CorruptPolitician Patronage, as American city bosses knew well]], could deliver voting blocs: in Europe the Italian Liberal Giovanni Giolitti proved to be the master of clientelist politics. The minimum age of voting was elastic: it ranged from twenty in democratic UsefulNotes/{{Switzerland}} to thirty in UsefulNotes/{{Denmark}}, [[YouthIsWastedOnTheDumb and was often raised somewhat]] when the right to vote was extended. And there was always the possibility of simple sabotage, by complicating the process of getting on to electoral registers. Thus in Britain it has been estimated that in 1914 about [[CantGetAwayWithNuthin half the working class was de facto disenfranchised]] by such devices."''
-->-- '''Eric Hobsbawm''', ''The Age of Empire'', Page 85-87.

-> ''There are three pure types of legitimate authority. The validity of their claims to legitimacy may be based on:\\

3. Charismatic grounds -- resting on devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority).''

-> ''If we want to categorize the unprecedented violence and terror of the past century, we could just as well [[BanOnPolitics use templates that have less to do with left-wing or right-wing isms]]. [[CantCatchUp Backward countries]] driven to modernize quickly were (and are) often scenes of repression and sickening mass killing, whether they were self-proclaimed Communists or not. In addition to modernization, one could use religion, nationalism, economic competition, or the technology of war to group the century's deaths. If we want to play this scorecard game with isms, we could post a huge number of deaths to the account of capitalist and nationalist competition, starting with imperialism and two world wars and ending with excess deaths in [[UsefulNotes/TheNewRussia Yeltsin's democratic Russia]].''

-> ''Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.''

-->-- '''Max Weber'''

-->-- '''Eric Hobsbawm''', ''The Age of Empire'', Page 85-87.

-> ''Democracy, as the sagacious Creator/{{Aristotle}} had observed, was the government of the mass of the people, who were, on the whole, poor. [[CaptainObvious The interests of the poor and the rich, the privileged and the unprivileged, are evidently not the same]]; even [[PatrioticFervor if we assume that they are or can be]], the masses [[NotInThisForYourRevolution are rather unlikely to consider public affairs in the same light]]...This was the basic dilemma of nineteenth century liberalism...devoted as it was to constitutions and sovereign elected assemblies, [[{{Hypocrite}} which it did its best to sidestep by being non-democratic]], i.e. by excluding the majority of male citizens of state, [[StayInTheKitchen not to mention the totality of their female inhabitants]], from the right to vote and to be elected...What indeed, would happen in politics when the masses of the people, ignorant and brutalized, unable to understand the elegant and salutary logic of Adam Smith's free market, controlled the political fate of states?...Politicians might resign themselves to prophylactic [[TheMoralSubstitute extensions of the vote while they, rather than some extreme left]], could still control it. This was probably the case in France and Britain. Among conservatives there were cynics like [[Usefulnotes/OttoVonBismarck Bismarck]] who had faith in the traditional loyalty -- or, as liberals might have claimed, [[HumansAreMorons the ignorance and stupidity]] -- of a mass electorate, calculating that universal suffrage [[HoistByHisOwnPetard would strengthen the right rather than the left]]. But even Bismarck [[TheChessmaster preferred to run no risks]] in UsefulNotes/{{Prussia}} (which dominated the [[UsefulNotes/ImperialGermany German Empire]]) where he maintained a three-class franchise strongly skewed in favour of the right...Manipulation in the crudest sense was still easy. One might, for instance, [[MovingTheGoalposts place strict limits on the political role of assemblies]] elected by universal suffrage. This was the Bismarckian model, in which the constitutional rights of the German parliament (Reichstag) were minimized. Elsewhere second chambers, [[AristocratsAreEvil sometimes composed of hereditary members]] as in Britain, voting by special (and weighted) electoral colleges and other analogous institutions put brakes on democratized representative assemblies. Elements of property suffrage were retained, reinforced by educational qualifications ... Such 'fancy franchises' as the British called them, were reinforced by the useful device of gerrymandering or what Austrians called 'electoral geometry' -- the manipulation of constituency boundaries to minimize or maximize support for certain parties...[[CorruptPolitician Patronage, as American city bosses knew well]], could deliver voting blocs: in Europe the Italian Liberal Giovanni Giolitti proved to be the master of clientelist politics. The minimum age of voting was elastic: it ranged from twenty in democratic UsefulNotes/{{Switzerland}} to thirty in UsefulNotes/{{Denmark}}, [[YouthIsWastedOnTheDumb and was often raised somewhat]] when the right to vote was extended. And there was always the possibility of simple sabotage, by complicating the process of getting on to electoral registers. Thus in Britain it has been estimated that in 1914 about [[CantGetAwayFromNuthin half the working class was de facto disenfranchised]] by such devices."''

-> ''Democracy, as the sagacious Creator/{{Aristotle}} had observed, was the government of the mass of the people, who were, on the whole, poor. The interests of the poor and the rich, the privileged and the unprivileged, are evidently not the same; even if we assume that they are or can be, the masses are rather unlikely to consider public affairs in the same light...This was the basic dilemma of nineteenth century liberalism...devoted as it was to constitutions and sovereign elected assemblies, which it did its best to sidestep by being non-democratic, i.e. by excluding the majority of male citizens of state, not to mention the totality of their female inhabitants, from the right to vote and to be elected...What indeed, would happen in politics when the masses of the people, ignorant and brutalized, unable to understand the elegant and salutary logic of Adam Smith's free market, controlled the political fate of states?...Would this not, as the future Lord Salisbury feared in 1966, inevitably lead to communism?...Politicians might resign themselves to prophylactic extensions of the vote while they, rather than some extreme left, could still control it. This was probably the case in France and Britain. Among conservatives there were cynics like [[Usefulnotes/OttoVonBismarck Bismarck]] who had faith in the traditional loyalty -- or, as liberals might have claimed, the ignorance and stupidity -- of a mass electorate, calculating that universal suffrage would strengthen the right rather than the left. But even Bismarck preferred to run no risks in UsefulNotes/{{Prussia}} (which dominated the German Empire) where he maintained a three-class franchise strongly skewed in favour of the right...Manipulation in the crudest sense was still easy. One might, for instance, place strict limits on the political role of assemblies elected by universal suffrage. This was the Bismarckian model, in which the constitutional rights of the German parliament (Reichstag) were minimized. Elsewhere second chambers, sometimes composed of heredity members as in Britain, voting by special (and weighted) electoral colleges and other analogous institutions put bakes on democratized representative assemblies. Elements of porperty suffrage were retained, reinforced by educational qualifications...Such 'fancy franchises' as the British called them, were reinforced by the useful device of gerrymandering or what Austrians called 'electoral geometry' -- the manipulation of constituency boundaries to minimize or maximize support for certain parties...Patronage, as American city bosses knew well, could deliver voting blocs: in Europe the Italian Liberal Giovanni Giolitti proved to be the master of clientelist politics. The minimum age of voting was elastic: it ranged from twenty in democratic UsefulNotes/{{Switzerland}} to thirty in UsefulNotes/{{Denmark}}, and was often raised somewhat when the right to vote was extended. And there was always the possibility of simple sabotage, by complicating the process of getting on to electoral registers. Thus in Britain it has been estimated that in 1914 about half the working class was de facto disenfranchised by such devices."''