Lindsay Lombardi
Professor Rodabaugh
HIST 1051
3 March 2013
Summary: Issue 8
Madaras/SoRelle, Taking Sides
“Did the Progressivism Fail?”
YES: “My thesis is that progressivism failed. It failed in what it-or what those who shaped it-conceived to be its principal objective. And that was, over and above everything else, to restore or maintain the conventional consensus on a particular view of the universe, a particular set of values, and a particular constellation of behavioral modes in the country’s commerce, its industry, its social relations, and its politics. Such a view, such values, such modes were challenged by the influx of diverse religious and ethnic elements into the nation’s social and intellectual stream, by the overwhelming economic success and power of the corporate form of business organization, by the subordination of the work-ethic bound up within the old proprietary and craft enterprise system, and by the increasing centrality of a growing proportion of low-income, unskilled, wage-earning classes in the nation’s economy and social structure.”
NO: “Again and again, they acknowledged the existence of social disharmony more fully and frankly than had nineteenth-century Americans. Nearly every social and economic reform of the era was predicated on the progressive recognition that diverse cultural and occupational groups had conflicting interests, and that the responsibility for mitigating and adjusting those differences lay with the whole society, usually the government. Such recognition was one of the progressives’ most significant achievements. Indeed, it stands among the most important accomplishments of liberal reform in all of American history. For, by frankly acknowledging the existence of social disharmony, the progressives committed the twentieth-century United States to recognizing-and to lessening-the inevitable conflicts of a heterogeneous industrial society.” In the excerpts above, Professor Richard M. Abrams and Professor Arthur S. Link contest their opinions of whether or not the Progressivism Era was a failure. Abrams states that progressivism failed because it attempted to enforce an identical set of principles and morals amongst a culturally distinct nation and never sincerely tried to encounter the inequalities the disparities that are still in existence in American society today. In his article, Abram states: “That problem was progress- or more specifically, how American society was to continue to enjoy the fruits of material progress without the accompanying assault upon human dignity and the erosion of conventional values and moral assumptions on which the social order appeared to rest…” He goes further on to explain that during the Progressive period, a large population of men and women entered into reform activities towards the ending of the nineteenth century to redefine the “national credo” into a universal agenda for social actions. Much of these actions were founded upon the Yankee Protestant tradition, which called for “the constant disinterested activity of the citizen in public affairs, argued that political life ought to be run, to a greater degree than it was, in accordance with general principles and abstract laws apart from and superior to personal needs, and expressed a common feeling that government should be in good part an effort to moralize the lives of individuals while economic life should be intimately related to the stimulation and development of individual character.” Abrams also maintains that growing nativism was responsible for the failure of progressivism. In parts of the country, racism was fully merged with reform movements, even at the peak of progressive activities. The suspected threats of “coolie labor” to the nation’s living standards, and the described “venal” immigrant and African American voting to Republican conventions triggered the alliance of racism and reform during this time period. The failure, he states, “was in part the inability of reform to deliver a meaningful share of social surplus to the groups left out of general national progress, and in part the inability of reform to achieve its objective of assimilation and consensus.” Professor Arthur S. Link holds an opinion differing from Abrams. He maintains the Progressive Era was not a failure. He states “In the broadest sense, progressivism was the way in which a whole generation of Americans defined themselves politically to respond to the nation’s problems at the turn of the century. The progressives made the first comprehensive efforts to grapple with the ills of a modern urban-industrial society. Hence the record of their achievements and failures has considerable relevance for our own time.” Link continues by stating that by the turn of the nineteenth century, industrialism had become accepted by a majority of Americans. The progressives also shared this view. He argues that most were not socialists, and assumed reform, not to destroy contemporary economic foundations, but rather to improve conditions of industrial life. In my opinion, I am personally divided between whether or not progressivism was a failure. Both Professor Link and Professor Abrams provide excellent evidence to support their beliefs as to why the Progressive Era was or was not a failure. I feel that the effort of the progressives to try to lessen the conflicts of social disharmony is progress within itself, but I suppose the fact that some unfortunate situations unfolded speak high volumes just as much.