Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 10-15 vardagar. Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.
By most accounts, Italian-style liberalism failed. Explanations of its failure vary from economic backwardness or a political culture shaped by autocracy to claims that liberals ruined their chances by pursuing nothing but narrow middle class interests. This study examines the liberal record to weigh the accuracy of these approaches. Ashley focuses on three controversial issues: public works, social reform, and public order. The railroads would test liberal commitment to laissez-faire, labor laws their pledge to protect all citizens, and dissent their allegiance to individual rights. In each case, liberals compromised their principles. What they decided defined the Italian variant of liberalism by transforming it from a doctrine to concrete practices and political behaviors.Particularly after 1890, liberals increasingly made empiricism the primary justification for policy and dismissed abstract principles as beneath notice. This shift helps explain why liberalism lost authority and credibility as a set of moral imperatives and as a coherent world view in Italy, as well as why it failed to offer most Italians a compelling alternative to either Socialsim or Fascism. Examining what liberals said and did, however, does not entirely support the despairing judgment of so many historians. Italian liberals managed to build a liberal state and to make it function against intransigent obstacles.
Susan A. Ashley is professor of history at Colorado College. She received her BA from Carleton College and her MA, European Institute Certificate, and PhD from Columbia University.
AcknowledgmentsIntroductionGoverning ItalyPrivate Enterprise and Public WorksPrivate Interests and the Public GoodThe State and Social JusticeFinding Ways to ReformLaw and OrderLiberty in LawLiberalism the Italian WayEpilogue: Liberalism and FascismBibliography
Ashley does a good job of analyzing changing policies and the accompanying arguments deployed in parliamentary debates and the press. She shows that vigorous debates took place about major policy changes that conflicted with preexisting sets of liberal beliefs.