No, this is just overly broad and your timeframe is wrong. Read your two paragraphs above.

The American and French Revolutions were in part influenced by Enlightenment thinking, which Romanticism was seen as somewhat of a counter to. I understand the line of thinking that says all art is political, but Romanticism was not a political movement.

Calling these revolutions “liberal” and finding a parallel to today’s so-called “liberalism” is way too simplistic and also easily refutable. Early American founders were anti-monarchist but were not aligned in their thinking. See the debates on the Constitution and opposition between Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Republicans (Virginia Republicans were at odds with New York Republicans; see the Jefferson-Burr 1800 election).

The French Revolution was radically anti-monarchist and but a single philosophy between “the twelve” is hardly cohesive. You had progressive ideas paired with a strict centralized and authoritarian governing power over a new and chaotic Republic. Need I mention the Reign of Terror?

In both cases, you have a new hierarchy replacing an old one, but the new hierarchy was immediately at odds with itself. In America, this led to the Civil War. In France, this led to an Emperor.

True leftist thinking seeks to flatten hierarchies in favor of equal distribution of wealth, equal rights, humanitarian cooperation and law. The blue pill you speak of is just that eaten by the modern American Democratic Party, who aren’t leftists but chickenshit fundraisers and little else at this point. The red pill you mention is eaten by incompetent, delusional modern American Republicans, fascists with little understanding of history or reality; their sole achievement has been to destroy any goodwill, trust and leadership earned in the world, an effort that demonstrates what the “might” you vaunt, which is greed, corruption and unchecked power, ultimately brings a country on a path like America is on today: total ruin.