Conservatism In Latin America

The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders seems to do little more than reiterate the concept that American republican modernity was debated by various countries located in Latin America in regards to their status as a united global political power. Not to say that these nations were united in terms of alliances, or treaties, but rather that some intellectuals adopted the concept of a “sisterhood” of republic democracies. The analysis of the political systems in Latin America after their independence from European nations is not where the disappointment lies, but rather the lack of context given to various components in his research that were supposed to show the transition of Latin America during its state of transformation from colonial territories to independent republican nations.

As liberalism ideology evolved and championed by the economic leaders, it pose a threat to the existing social settings such as the presence of the nobility, and the church. The attempt to defend existing social arrangement is what brought about conservatism. Conservatives stood against the ideas of liberals in a rational for maintaining existing traditional political structures and the centralization of power. They stood against transferring political responsibility to the common people under the disguise of equality (Shively, 2014).

At the turn of the century, America and the views of its people were changing. Many different ideas were surfacing about issues that affected the country as a whole. The Republican Party, led by William McKinley, were concentrating on the expansion of the United States and looking to excel in power and commerce. The Democratic Party at this time was led by William Jennings Bryan, who was absorbed in a sponge of morality and was concerned with the rights of man. The nation’s self-interest was divided into different ideas between the two parties. At this time imperialism and anti-imperialism were the dominant topics regarding America’s destiny.

Prior to the Great Depression, Chile had prospered amidst the workings of free-market and mercantilist polices. The Great Depression, however, disrupted this, as it brought about the necessity of government intervention in the economy. Indeed, government intervention even stretched so far as to transform Chile into a nation insulated by protectionist policies. Furthermore, the Great Depression had undoubtedly brought about a political crisis in Chile with the ousting of Ibáñez del Campo in 1931, who himself had partaken in a military coup d’état to achieve presidency in the first place. It has even been posited that the nationalization of copper that had begun during the presidency of Ibáñez del Campo and which was completed during the presidency of Salvador Allende in the early 1970s built the foundation for a future international economic boycott, which further

Throughout the course of history, several authoritarian leaders have risen to power and maintained their acquired power through physical, violent means. Two authoritarian leaders that have transformed their acquired power into dictatorial rights are Fidel Castro of Cuba and Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Interestingly, Castro and Pinochet differed in their ideals about the ideal structure of governments. While Castro advocated for a socialist, Marxist, anti-imperialist Cuba, Pinochet favored a anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, capitalist Chile. Despite their differing ideals, both shared several similarities in their efforts to establish and maintain their power. Both individuals rose to power in a similar manner: a sort of coup d’état. Both individuals maintained power through positive and negative means. Castro and Pinochet introduced several economic reforms that mostly benefited the people of Cuba and Chile. While these economic reforms allowed for the financial freedom of many Cubans and Chileans, the dictatorial rulers politically repressed the residents of Cuba and Chile. While many historians believe that Castro and Pinochet greatly differed due to their opposing beliefs, both dictators share multiple similarities in the ways that they rose to power, negatively maintained power, and positively

Typically Liberalism can be categorized into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterized by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept.

This paper will determine and defend whether I am liberal or conservative. I strongly disagree with many of the liberal principles; therefore, this paper will show that I am a conservative.

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Politically, Latin America became infamous in the eyes of other countries for frequent regime collapses and violent tactics, which frequented the Latin American civilization. Just as in the Western Society, two politically active groups, the liberals and conservatives divided the country. The liberals who were strongly influenced by Westerners, trusted parliamentary governments, civil rights and constitutions, and wished for a great reduction in the power of the church. The liberal party believed strongly in the need for an extended education, and tended to

Fiya Rivers 11/13 Ap essay #2 Mexican and South American Comparison essay While some differences between the Mexico and South American revolutions are evident,the similarities are also striking. Specifically, similarities and differences, economically, such as South America's land distribution, and economic structure; and Mexico's wealth issues, as well as inequalities. Political causes, such as political dominance, and being influenced by other revolutions and dictatorship, as well as invasion. And social similarities in inequalities, nationalism effects. Finally, the power of the Church, and similarities and differences in effects of the revolutions.

American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical

In the 19th century, liberalism and conservatism were two very different political parties fighting for their version of what South America should become. These two parties had many different views that would ultimately shape the nations into what they are in the modern day. In this triumphant battle between the two parties, South America was at a turning point. Many countries were on the forefront of independence and this meant a chance to make a change in the government these countries had. Conservatives and Liberal beliefs appealed to different types of groups such as classes, races, industries and even gender. Although Conservatives and Liberals had many different views, both parties were fighting for what they thought was the better future for the nations of South America. These parties were very important to the advancement of South America and the stride towards independence.

Chile’s economy was effectively owned by US corporation’s, and these corporation’s controlled the country's resources. When Allende nationalized copper the two main American corporation were financially hurt severely and lost a lot of profit. This concerned the US and Nixon worried that Chile was falling under soviet control and communism. One of Nixon’s fears was that the Soviets would have total control in Americas backyard. However, the major reason that the US instigated the overthrow was because the corporations did not want Chile to take over their own resources and use them for their own benefit. The corporations were able to exercise leverage over Allende because Chile was in the middle of an economic depression and Chile was receiving loans from American banks. Once Allende was in power these loans were stopped by US foreign policy and of course Chile suffered economically . At this point,

In the post-World War II era, the globe was polarized by two idealistically divergent superpowers; the United States and the Soviet Union, two nations that strived to promote capitalism and communism, respectively, throughout the globe. Nowhere was this struggle more apparent than in developing countries with shaky political and economic backbones. Specifically, in Latin America the old, corrupt and often totalitarian regimes were threatened by grassroots liberation movements whose ideas of land reform and shaking up the status quo were often perceived as Marxism. The Catholic Church, which had traditionally supported the wealthy ruling class, began to change its beliefs in

In order to fix the Chilean economy, Pinochet sought help of economic graduates from the University of Chicago (Ensalaco, 2000). Pinochet would implement their idea for a neoliberal economy that would help modernized Chile. This plan completely reversed the social reforms Allende attempted to implement. It would free up market forces, allow the privatization of many industries. This model no longer allowed the state to be in complete control of the country's economic and social changes (Oppenheim, 1999).