Louis Napoleon, Nationalism, and Trump

PSA-Nicole did something revolutionary...she showered

Hegel from the last chapter believed each age is characterized by a dominant set of ideas, which produces opposing ideas and a new synthesis...and thus the cycle of history goes...as illustrated in the relationship between Chapter 23 and 25.

bet she had quite the reaction to the hot water...like Europe did to the revolutions

Europe responded to Metternich’s period of relative, though repressive peace, diplomatic stability, and romanticism with one of war, rapid change and realism from 1850 to 1914. The rough economic times of the 1840s were followed by the good years of 50s and 60s, while the revolutions of 1848 (all of which failed due to a lack of nationalism/unity of purpose) were replaced by a period of overflowing nationalism.

This new nationalism wore many different masks: it could occur in states of different forms of government and people had nationalistic sentiments for various reasons. (American nationalism from victory over  the British and success of democracy was different from any nationalist sentiment in Europe at the time-where there was no democracy and no postcolonial sentiment)

 feelings of common loyalty and purpose that resulted
from nationalism made everyone feel...fabulous about their country

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte swept into power after the failed revolutions of 1848. He was elected by universal male suffrage because his name implied the stability/nationalism that the first Napoleon enforced-and this was all the French wanted (both in 1804 & 1848) after their failed revolutions.

“Were they revolutions if they failed, though?” (Mr. Yarnall)...they failed because they were not unified (think different cultures, different social classes, different revolutionary goals=once they got some power, they fought over what to do with it, and weakened the revolutionary front). 

• Yes-they still brought revolutionary ideas to the forefront which eventually wrought concrete changes.
• would the nationalism and suffrage the characterized Napoleon 3’s reign have existed if not for the revolutions?

Napoleon was the antithesis of these failures-he promised unity, economic stability, and social progress, as outlined in his positive program for France in the pamphlets, Napoleonic Ideas  & The Elimination of Poverty.He believed: 

• that the government should represent the people, linked to each citizen by direct democracy and that it should attempt to help them economically-provide jobs/stimulate economy
• that a nationalistic, authoritarian ruler was the best way to strengthen this government-populace link, without the special interests of parliaments and political parties confusing this vital communication.

Napoleon was elected to a 4-year term during which he shared power with the conservative national assembly, which refused to change the constitution for him so he could run for a second term...thus, Napoleon began conspiring with key army officers and on December 2nd 1851 illegally dismissed the assembly and seized power in a coup d’etat.

• resistances were crushed by the army and once Napoleon restored universal male suffrage and called on French people to legalize his actions, they did: 92% voted to make him president for the next 10 years.

Voting brings forth two important terms-mass politics and mass loyalties, the former giving birth to the latter. Mass politics is what we have in the US-everyone votes, and the political order is based on major political parties which get people to vote for them by telling people what they want to hear and throwing candy at them.

earlier hereditary monarchs

..like Bernie promising a $15 minimum wage and Trump hating the Mexicans. They are giving us what we want to hear in two extreme ways...appealing to people’s frustration with the government by throwing out points that the government would never accomplish...being so totally against the grain of what a typical candidate would do that they’ve come to represent total change-which is what people want.

totally against the grain...like the naps

...Back to Europe…

"A leader is a dealer in hope" as the first Napoleon said. 

Responding to the needs/emotions of the people was a new idea brought about by voting-something Metternich never needed to worry about because he wasn’t being elected, so he could afford to be unpopular.

...looking forward...Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian who manipulated different pieces of Germanic lands into one country did things he didn’t necessarily agree with in order to achieve his end goal later on.

...It seems the Machiavellian ideal that it is better to be feared than loved had begun to crumble and now, it was either better to be feared and loved, or only loved.

So was Marx a nationalist?... No way...he believed one part of society should revolt against the other, and the two groups of society are always at war with one another.