Why Did The Progressives Fail
Did the Progressives Fail?
Progressivism generated positive results. If one thinks of progressives as one group of people with one clear objective, then they succeeded. But, consider the word “progressives” as a general term that encompasses these assorted clusters unfairly, because it defines these groups as one. The progressives’ diverse and opposing views break up the previously described group into separate sets of individuals trying to achieve the same goals, in a different way. Because these groups did not agree on how to achieve things in one way, the “progressives” never met some objectives because their contradicting methods resulted in the opposite result. How could every one of these groups do what they set out to? No, they could not possibly have done so. The “Progressive Era,” occurred between the years following the Spanish-American War and the United States’ …show more content…
involvement in World War I. Anti-war and anti-imperialistic views divided citizens from their government. This resulted in a reestablishment of traditional American values minded group. The open-door immigration policy unsettled the xenophobic, and otherwise racist, people. So many people in the confined spaces of big cities demanded attention to several things. Those issues included health conditions, working conditions, and the education of new arrivals. These and other concerns could have led to hate and anger-induced riots. However, a large number of people thoughtfully approached the idea of reform instead of turning to violence. The variety of wrongs and ways to right them spawned a divided force trying to complete the same goals in dissimilar ways. Progressives may be divided into three main groups: those trying to improve government, people looking to induce social change, and others seeking to mend the corruption of big business and industry. All aforementioned assemblies can be further divided by the way individuals wanted to achieve their goals.
Did they accomplish anything at all? Richard M. Abrams, in “The Failure of Progressivism,” states “…not to say that things are worse than before, but only they are not conspicuously better.” Arthur S. Link, in “Progressivism in History,” agrees, saying that American government and politics “probably emerged neither more nor less democratic than before…” In contrast, he also writes “at the very least, the political changes of the progressive era significantly accommodated American public life to an urban-industrial society.”
Link and Abrams provide the perfectly appropriate pair to answer the question of whether the progressives failed. Link views it as an overall success, because “progressivism was the only reform movement experienced by the whole American nation,” and things came out moderately better, in the end. Abrams says, “It failed in what it… conceived to be its principal objective… to restore or maintain the conventional consensus on a particular set of values, and particular constellation of behavioral modes in the country’s commerce, its industry, its social relations, and its politics.” These two have differing opinions on what it succeeded and failed at, just as the progressives disagreed on how to accomplish anything. Progressives led sought to change America’s structures of government, politics, the economy and social-standards to pre-war status.
Abrams says they did this by “educating immigrants and the poor…imposing regulations upon corporate practices in order to preserve a minimal base for small proprietary businesses enterprise…making legislative accommodations to the newly important wage-earning classes…so as to forestall a forcible transfer of policy-making power away from the groups that had conventionally exercised that power; and by broadening the political selection process, through direct elections, direct nominations, and direct legislation.” Link writes that progressives failed in the political aspirations, saying, “After the progressive era, just as before, wealthier elements in American society had a disproportionate share of political power…” Abrams says agrees, saying, “Direct nominations and elections have tended to make political campaigns so expensive as to reduce the number of eligible candidates for public office to… the independently wealthy…ideologues…and party
hacks…” The “wealthier elements in American society” also includes corporations and big business. Abrams calls the rise of business to power “the corporate reform movement.” He says this “because it challenged the traditional relationship of ownership and private property,” and “it represented a shift from production to profits…” He goes on to include small-business owners and farmers to be the “character of the American social structure.” Despite this, also has, on his list of progressives’ chief enemies, “agrarian radicalism and populism.” He says it “represented the insurgency of a class conventionally believed to be properly excluded from a policy-making role in the society…” So progressive believed neither big corporations, the very rich, farmers, or small business owners should have a big influence on politics.
That leaves the middle-class to decide on how each should affect the other. Abrams says this turned into another failure because, as the country turned into more of an industrialized society, despite the results of Smith-Lever Act of 1914, “…most farmers remained as dependent as ever upon…the bankers, the middlemen, and the international market.” The farmers saw no progress in their condition. Abrams includes “…it was not until the 1940’s that any real change occurred…” Also, “While progressivism failed to restore vitality to American farming, it failed also to stop the vigorous ascendancy of corporate capitalism…” Link’s article contains nothing on how the farmer’s issues turned out, but agrees saying “outpourings of anger at corporate wrongdoing and of hatred for industry’s callous pursuit of profit frequently punctuated the course of reform…”
Who made suggested the legislation that led to these failures? Link says “Progressivism was inspired by two bodies of belief and knowledge- evangelical Protestantism and social sciences.” He states the Protestants’ “goal was to align churches…on the side of the downtrodden, the poor, and working people.” Who are the downtrodden, poor, and working people? - New immigrants, Asians, African-Americans, and poor whites. To improve the conditions of these citizens, Protestants focused on “Americanizing” the African-Americans and foreigners. Link says “The resultant reforms could also seem intolerant to the people who were ‘reformed.’” Abrams explains how this “intolerance” showed itself, saying progressives opposed “the demand for specific political and social recognition of ethnic or ex-national affiliations – because accession to the demand meant acknowledgement of the fragmentation of American society…” So, as Abrams explains, the reformation of African-Americans failed because it “was probably the Springfield race riot of 1908 that ended illusions that black people could gain an equitable share in the rewards of American culture by accomodationist or assimilationist methods.” Link admits assimilation of immigrants failed because “the class and cultural backgrounds of the leading progressives often made them insensitive to lower-class immigrant Americans and their cultures…in consequence, progressives never fulfilled their hope of eliminating social conflict.” Link says the progressives did not fail because “The effort to change so many things at once… meant that disappointments were bound to occur,” but “accomplished and enormous amount of what they set out to achieve.” What did progressives do to help poor people working in factories? Link includes in his article that some “tried to improve the dangerous and unhealthy conditions in which may people lived and worked,” but says nothing further on the subject. Abrams describes something the progressives opposed as the “labor union movement.” He says they contended labor unions because “despite the virtues of unionized labor as a source of countervailing force against the corporations as a basis for more orderly labor force, unionism…suggested a reduction of individualistic options…” However, they failed in ultimately achieving their objective to eradicate them. Abrams ascribes the reason for the failure to “wartime labor developments.” Also, “…the progressives’ hostility to labor unions defeated their own objectives of (1) counterbalancing the power of collectivized capital… (2) enhancing workers’ share of the nation’s wealth.” Working conditions improved because of labor unions instead of the efforts of progressives’. For example, children could not work in dangerous environments and workers achieved their goal of instituting eight-hour workdays. Throughout Link’s article on how progressives succeeded, he consistently acknowledges that progressives did not meet every objective. He sums this up by stating, “Perhaps most significant, progressives failed to achieve all their goals because, despite their efforts, they never fully came to terms with the divisions and conflicts in American society.” However, he goes on to say that “…no other generation of Americans has done conspicuously better in addressing the political, economic, and social conditions which it faced.” Abrams recognizes that progressives did influence the improvement of society, but hardly completed any of its objectives. He concludes “The Failure of Progressivism” saying, “Perhaps the crowning failure of progressivism was the American role in World War I. It is true that many progressives opposed America’s intervention, but it is also true that a great many more supported it. The failure in progressivism lies not in the decision to intervene but in the futility of intervention measured by progressive expectations.” At the end of the progressive era, the country observed a slightly improved political, social, and industrial health. This is not to say the progressives succeeded in their undertaking. The significant majority of unfulfilled objectives and worsening of some things they sought to improve makes the progressive movement a failure, despite the reformers extensive efforts.
Progressivism generated positive results. If one thinks of progressives as one group of people with one clear objective, then they succeeded. But, consider the word “progressives” as a general term that encompasses these assorted clusters unfairly, because it defines these groups as one. The progressives’ diverse and opposing views break up the previously described group into separate sets of individuals trying to achieve the same goals, in a different way. Because these groups did not agree on how to achieve things in one way, the “progressives” never met some objectives because their contradicting methods resulted in the opposite result. How could every one of these groups do what they set out to? No, they could not possibly have done so. The “Progressive Era,” occurred between the years following the Spanish-American War and the United States’ …show more content…
involvement in World War I. Anti-war and anti-imperialistic views divided citizens from their government. This resulted in a reestablishment of traditional American values minded group. The open-door immigration policy unsettled the xenophobic, and otherwise racist, people. So many people in the confined spaces of big cities demanded attention to several things. Those issues included health conditions, working conditions, and the education of new arrivals. These and other concerns could have led to hate and anger-induced riots. However, a large number of people thoughtfully approached the idea of reform instead of turning to violence. The variety of wrongs and ways to right them spawned a divided force trying to complete the same goals in dissimilar ways. Progressives may be divided into three main groups: those trying to improve government, people looking to induce social change, and others seeking to mend the corruption of big business and industry. All aforementioned assemblies can be further divided by the way individuals wanted to achieve their goals.
Did they accomplish anything at all? Richard M. Abrams, in “The Failure of Progressivism,” states “…not to say that things are worse than before, but only they are not conspicuously better.” Arthur S. Link, in “Progressivism in History,” agrees, saying that American government and politics “probably emerged neither more nor less democratic than before…” In contrast, he also writes “at the very least, the political changes of the progressive era significantly accommodated American public life to an urban-industrial society.”
Link and Abrams provide the perfectly appropriate pair to answer the question of whether the progressives failed. Link views it as an overall success, because “progressivism was the only reform movement experienced by the whole American nation,” and things came out moderately better, in the end. Abrams says, “It failed in what it… conceived to be its principal objective… to restore or maintain the conventional consensus on a particular set of values, and particular constellation of behavioral modes in the country’s commerce, its industry, its social relations, and its politics.” These two have differing opinions on what it succeeded and failed at, just as the progressives disagreed on how to accomplish anything. Progressives led sought to change America’s structures of government, politics, the economy and social-standards to pre-war status.
Abrams says they did this by “educating immigrants and the poor…imposing regulations upon corporate practices in order to preserve a minimal base for small proprietary businesses enterprise…making legislative accommodations to the newly important wage-earning classes…so as to forestall a forcible transfer of policy-making power away from the groups that had conventionally exercised that power; and by broadening the political selection process, through direct elections, direct nominations, and direct legislation.” Link writes that progressives failed in the political aspirations, saying, “After the progressive era, just as before, wealthier elements in American society had a disproportionate share of political power…” Abrams says agrees, saying, “Direct nominations and elections have tended to make political campaigns so expensive as to reduce the number of eligible candidates for public office to… the independently wealthy…ideologues…and party
hacks…” The “wealthier elements in American society” also includes corporations and big business. Abrams calls the rise of business to power “the corporate reform movement.” He says this “because it challenged the traditional relationship of ownership and private property,” and “it represented a shift from production to profits…” He goes on to include small-business owners and farmers to be the “character of the American social structure.” Despite this, also has, on his list of progressives’ chief enemies, “agrarian radicalism and populism.” He says it “represented the insurgency of a class conventionally believed to be properly excluded from a policy-making role in the society…” So progressive believed neither big corporations, the very rich, farmers, or small business owners should have a big influence on politics.
That leaves the middle-class to decide on how each should affect the other. Abrams says this turned into another failure because, as the country turned into more of an industrialized society, despite the results of Smith-Lever Act of 1914, “…most farmers remained as dependent as ever upon…the bankers, the middlemen, and the international market.” The farmers saw no progress in their condition. Abrams includes “…it was not until the 1940’s that any real change occurred…” Also, “While progressivism failed to restore vitality to American farming, it failed also to stop the vigorous ascendancy of corporate capitalism…” Link’s article contains nothing on how the farmer’s issues turned out, but agrees saying “outpourings of anger at corporate wrongdoing and of hatred for industry’s callous pursuit of profit frequently punctuated the course of reform…”
Who made suggested the legislation that led to these failures? Link says “Progressivism was inspired by two bodies of belief and knowledge- evangelical Protestantism and social sciences.” He states the Protestants’ “goal was to align churches…on the side of the downtrodden, the poor, and working people.” Who are the downtrodden, poor, and working people? - New immigrants, Asians, African-Americans, and poor whites. To improve the conditions of these citizens, Protestants focused on “Americanizing” the African-Americans and foreigners. Link says “The resultant reforms could also seem intolerant to the people who were ‘reformed.’” Abrams explains how this “intolerance” showed itself, saying progressives opposed “the demand for specific political and social recognition of ethnic or ex-national affiliations – because accession to the demand meant acknowledgement of the fragmentation of American society…” So, as Abrams explains, the reformation of African-Americans failed because it “was probably the Springfield race riot of 1908 that ended illusions that black people could gain an equitable share in the rewards of American culture by accomodationist or assimilationist methods.” Link admits assimilation of immigrants failed because “the class and cultural backgrounds of the leading progressives often made them insensitive to lower-class immigrant Americans and their cultures…in consequence, progressives never fulfilled their hope of eliminating social conflict.” Link says the progressives did not fail because “The effort to change so many things at once… meant that disappointments were bound to occur,” but “accomplished and enormous amount of what they set out to achieve.” What did progressives do to help poor people working in factories? Link includes in his article that some “tried to improve the dangerous and unhealthy conditions in which may people lived and worked,” but says nothing further on the subject. Abrams describes something the progressives opposed as the “labor union movement.” He says they contended labor unions because “despite the virtues of unionized labor as a source of countervailing force against the corporations as a basis for more orderly labor force, unionism…suggested a reduction of individualistic options…” However, they failed in ultimately achieving their objective to eradicate them. Abrams ascribes the reason for the failure to “wartime labor developments.” Also, “…the progressives’ hostility to labor unions defeated their own objectives of (1) counterbalancing the power of collectivized capital… (2) enhancing workers’ share of the nation’s wealth.” Working conditions improved because of labor unions instead of the efforts of progressives’. For example, children could not work in dangerous environments and workers achieved their goal of instituting eight-hour workdays. Throughout Link’s article on how progressives succeeded, he consistently acknowledges that progressives did not meet every objective. He sums this up by stating, “Perhaps most significant, progressives failed to achieve all their goals because, despite their efforts, they never fully came to terms with the divisions and conflicts in American society.” However, he goes on to say that “…no other generation of Americans has done conspicuously better in addressing the political, economic, and social conditions which it faced.” Abrams recognizes that progressives did influence the improvement of society, but hardly completed any of its objectives. He concludes “The Failure of Progressivism” saying, “Perhaps the crowning failure of progressivism was the American role in World War I. It is true that many progressives opposed America’s intervention, but it is also true that a great many more supported it. The failure in progressivism lies not in the decision to intervene but in the futility of intervention measured by progressive expectations.” At the end of the progressive era, the country observed a slightly improved political, social, and industrial health. This is not to say the progressives succeeded in their undertaking. The significant majority of unfulfilled objectives and worsening of some things they sought to improve makes the progressive movement a failure, despite the reformers extensive efforts.