Progressivism-Middle+Class+Disillusionment

LM - In this scholastic essay, George Mowry explicates economic, social, and political facets of the Progressive movement. Arising from a minority class discontent with dramatic polar divide between capitalism's upper class and labor's lower class, the Progressive movement was comprised of predominantly middle class individuals trying to see through the battle smoke between the industrialist and the unionist fronts. The progressives, in terms of liberal versus conservative, were distinctly liberal, but, annoyed with the economic imperialism of the far right and politically scared of the far left, the progressives raised the banner of social centrism. This likely sprung from their middle class origins. While socially and politically forward looking, middle class progressives were not perfect compromisers and utopians, as they frequently expressed elements of racism and certain aggressive anti-individualism. The profile of the early 20th century progressive provides an excellent example of how a centrist social movement rose to dominance.

Relating the Progressive Movement to other socio-political movements, it is obvious how the "split-the-difference" movements usually surpassed the success of political extremities. As progressives gained support through their quest for a middle political path between the industrialists and the unionists, so other third parties - such as the Democrats during the Grange movement - who provided a non-extremist agenda emerged dominant. This is part of a three step oscillating political cycle, where the political party privy to one extreme makes mistakes (which is natural and inevitable), the party of the opposite camp wins support to remedy the mistakes of its opponents, and finally the new extreme makes mistakes (just as the party it replaced did) and the central agenda wins because of fear for a repeated failure of the extremes. The Progressive Movement was the early 20th century's response to the economic oppression reaped by big-business trusts and labor's over-reactive demands for inflated wages and other laborer-elevating acts that hurt the economy.

= It is unfortunate that in the process of gaining political support the Progressive Movement assumed certain malignant stances. Slightly racist and slightly urban centric, the Progressive Movement was not perfect. It did promote social reforms, but when pressed for a stance, progressives generally stood being corporate trusts when it came to economic change. . =

AVG – In “Progressivism: Middle-Class Disillusionment,” George Mowry asserts that the Progressive reformers saw themselves as the only hope of a society plagued by threats from both the upper and lower classes. As such, they insisted on their reform measures even when the rest of society disagreed and defended their role as “benevolent guardians” of society (242). Although he criticizes negative aspects of Progressivism (such as racism), Mowry concludes by stating that Progressivism’s effects were “benign” and did detrimentally affect society (247).

David J. Rothman, in “The State as Parent,” agrees with Mowry that Progressive reformers were convinced of their role as the protectors of society and therefore imposed their agenda on others. However, rather than stating that these reform efforts were benign, Rothman says that many ended in failure and deprived the supposed beneficiaries of these reforms of legal rights; for example, juvenile court reform often deprived defendants of their rights in court because reformers wanted to rehabilitate them (for their own benefit as well as that of society) through incarceration. As a result, Rothman argues, reformers in the 1970s (when Rothman wrote his article) have often moved to the other extreme and emphasize the necessity of legal representation and strict enforcement of rights for all groups.

Although some Progressive movements were overly paternalistic, most of the reform measures of the era were beneficial to society even when they may have infringed on others’ rights. For example, the Adamson Act, which limited interstate railroad workers to an eight-hour workday, could be construed as paternalistic and limited the right of workers to negotiate their own contracts. However, given the plight of the workers during the Progressive Era, such legislation was necessary for the benefit of society as a whole. (In contrast, as conditions for laborers improved, overly paternalistic legislation was no longer necessary; this increase in the standard of living was likely the cause of the later movements that Rothman described.) Thus, both Rothman and Mowry are correct that Progressive reformers believed they could improve society, but Rothman incorrectly uses a few failed examples of Progressive reform to emphasize the flawed nature of Progressives’ paternalism. checked 11/7