Back when I was thinking a lot about how history might have turned out if the American Revolution failed (Saratoga PoD), I could actually see modern political thinking splitting into two major ideological camps by the end of the 19th Century (in lieu of "liberalism" and "socialism" as OTL):
Aristocratic Republicanism, or simply known as "republicanism" TTL, which advocates republican structures for the purpose of empowering the "better sorts" -- in most societies to be taken as an elite of property owners (a la Locke's conception, early America, etc), though there are nations that conceive it more narrowly (eg the Republic of (Southern) Africa, which sets the white settlers up to rule over the native Africans).
Social Monarchy -- or simply known as "monarchism" TTL, which sees the role of the monarch to intervene in government (or simply rule it in its absolutist form) in the interests of the most vulnerable -- the poor over the rich, women and children over men, etc -- and thus serve as unifier of the country. And of course, connected to the idea of a paternalistic monarchy is that elites (political, economic, and otherwise) should be paternalistic and devoted to those below them, etc.
"Civicism" -- If these two come to emerge as the primary movers of the later 19th Century, they could also see a form of synthesis between them emerge as a powerful force, potentially dominating the 20th Century. Where TTL saw "Republicanism" seek an enforced unity through horizontal power structures among a (more or less) meritocratic *elite*, and "Monarchy" seek an all encompassing unity through vertical structure of a strong executive, this new approach seeks to bind all elements society hierarchically and meritocratically, through expansions of institutions like the military. (This comes to share many similarities with OTL's fascism.)
Liberal Democracy would, TTL, be an intriguing, but largely untested (and thus considered fringe) concept, akin to OTL's anarchism or syndicalism...