For that reason, these four assumptions:
First, Liberalism is not the same as "democracy".
Second, while the political ideals of Liberalism are to provide a better existence for the underclass, Liberalism itself was and is controlled by the middle class.
Third, initially one could say without fear that the beginnings of political liberalism was a movement against the power of the Church.
And, fourth, when those the liberal wing of a political party raise up, economically, these new middle class bourgeoisie inevitably turns conservative.
Democracy is an often misused word. Manent (1995) claims that "Radically depreciating the pretensions to 'virtue' of the nobility, and simultaneously making people 'honest', Machiavelli becomes the first democratic thinker" (Manent 16). And even though this author claims that Machiavelli drew a distinction between the evil in politics and the inherent goodness of people, he never really went so far as to permit these "ordinary" people to assume the powers of The Prince. As one can read the various philosophers, (Hobbes and Rousseau, for example, are more antagonistic or supportive of the Church of their day) there is no one who truly claims that the so-called
"masses" have the power to control a Liberalistic nation. That, one assumes, is left to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose "overthrow" theories would put the proletariat in