A Little History of the Whole Progressive Movement

I wrote this reaction to the excerpt "The Progressive Ferment" from Imperial America by Gore Vidal for my history class. Maybe it can give you a little firmer background on the history of progressivism in our nation. Hope you like it:

In this excerpt from Imperial America, the author discusses the origins and beginnings of the Progressive Movement in the United States. The movement was a long-awaited response to the influx of selfishness, corruption, and greed that pervaded over American society during the days of "big business" and the Gospel of Wealth. In response to the aforementioned issues, Progressivism, both in its conservative and liberal forms, called for a return to morality in society, government, politics, business, and the economy. Through the backing of reforms targeted at the resolution of such issues as white slavery, the Americanization of immigrants, and the destruction of urban political machines, they aimed to right the countless number of wrongs brought on by the social and economic extravagance and apathy which went hand in hand just a little while earlier. Although these Progressives had every intention of coming in and making our country a place to be truly proud of by achieving a balance between capitalism and charity, and between growth and humility as a nation, they made the mistake of settling for just a little bit less than they had promised their followers. Though the author makes their achievements seem groundbreaking, I beg to differ. By wavering on key issues, the first Progressives were hypocrites to their own cause.

This statement might seem outrageous, but one must first take a good look at the situations and issues in question. A good example to start with is Theodore Roosevelt. After a presidency of "trust-busting," he chose Taft as his successor, claiming that he would not run for presidential office again. At the period in question, "trust-busting" had been found to be futile, believed to lack any real reign over trusts except for their reincarnation in the forms of secret business deals, alliances, and plans. After changing his mind about the prospect of the presidency, Roosevelt planned to run for his former office as a Progressive, but with a new view of trusts. Believing them to be positive in the name of capitalism and American economy, he proposed to only regulate them instead of abolishing them, in accordance with his "big business, big government" concept.

Although it seemed positive at the time to many, in retrospect, when the going got tough, the Roosevelt got going. Whatever happened to the idealistic President of the United States who could achieve nearly anything he set his mind to? He got scared, and possibly overwhelmed, and conceded. This is why I chose him to be the first example of the extreme hypocrisy within the Progressive party of the time in question. His shift in opinion very well might have prevented his reelection.

Another way in which Progressives contradicted themselves was through the pursuit of concepts and plans which left far too much room for loopholes to achieve their desired effect. This is in reference to the type of legislation that could be used just as negatively as that of days of old if placed in the hands of the wrong politician. One such concept was the "city manager" plan. The office, appointed to a managerial expert who would run the city like a huge business, was meant to reform government, but it could have easily went wrong. The author cites the "commission" form of government as an example of corruption that would be prevented by the plan. One must take all factors into account, though, since a plan is only as good or successful as the people responsible for carrying it out.

The only factor necessary to transform the entire concept into a drastic mistake would be a corrupt candidate. If one truly wished to deal a dirty hand in business, they could involve the entire city in scandal, playing on the trust of its inhabitants. What would keep a formerly connected businessman from returning to his roots? Good faith? I doubt it. If the office was to mean anything, the initial plans for the office of city manager should include a proviso that the candidate not be elected, but, rather, be appointed to the office by an unbiased group of politicians with representatives from every party and viewpoint. One must keep in mind that at the time in question, society was just as corrupt as big business in many ways, most notably the selfishness of the privileged. If given the opportunity, they’d most likely endorse the candidate who would best serve them, not the needs of the public. Through such flawed plans and ideas, Progressives set the stage for their own failure.

This is why I cannot help but doubt the Progressives of the era in question. They leave too much room for negotiation and lose their intended effect in the process. The greatest of motives cannot guarantee the success or failure of a person, but being firm in one’s actions is key to any progress at all. In order to succeed in their bold efforts, they should have made their plans foolproof in order to avoid any potential misuse or misinterpretation. If they had been a little more uncompromising and a little less afraid of the possible outcomes of their actions, they might have achieved even greater renown than that which colors the pages of American history books today. They could have stood for something more than themselves. This is why I am disappointed in their wavering attitudes towards national progress and reform.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •