How does McGerr's essay on Progressivism compare and contrast to your views of the Progressive Movement, based on your textbook reading? Do you find his analysis compelling? Why or why not?
McGerr’s essay on Progressivism views the movement negatively. He describes the movement as an attempt to push the values of “the ten” on working-class Americans who couldn’t afford to embrace individualism. I found his evidence interesting, but not moving enough to change my viewpoint. I have almost the complete opposite view, which is that Progressive policies were the best thing to happen to America in a long time: regulations on the workplace, a political voice for women, and a breakup of corrupt city politics. Though some policies were perhaps misguided – for example, Prohibition and the Constitutional amendment that accompanied it – for the most part, I think the leaders of Progressivism ought to be applauded for their brave ideals and innovative ideas of societal and political progress.
While McGerr stated that socialism had a distinctive effect on the Progressive movement, I think that socialism was a result of the movement. I think the progressive movement began because of the rapid development of the middle class and the simple need for reform. McGerr is also very negative about the Progressive movement, and painted it in a negative light, while in actuality it was a very positive movement that helped society advance.
McGerr states that progressivism was a successful, radical movement based on socialism, and this is like the textbook because the textbook talks about how the movement was a radical one, yet it accomplished a lot of things, and made numerous changes.
I agree with McGerr's view that progressivism was a movement designed to empower the middle class and make the nation serve them, rather than only the interests of the wealthy, and I found his analysis of the backlash caused by these changes compelling, as Progressivism is thought of as a movement that was able to secure lasting change, rather than one that caused a long backlash.
McGerr described Progressivism as a movement that was primarily spurred by the "middle class. McGerr describes why these middle class citizens began the Progressive movement. He describes how they were socially in the middle of the "working class", comprised mostly of immigrants, and rich monopolists and businessmen. However, the book describes Progressivism as a movement started by woman and people who simply felt that the government was lacking in morals.
While McGerr's essay criticizes the progressives for using the movement as a way to subordinate other ranks of society, the textbook argues that the progressives were not so much saying that they were above everyone, but that American Society was above corruption. They were anti-monopoly in that they opposes the corruption of the machine. Also, they promoted social cohesion, order and efficiency, and enlightened public opinion, in order to ameliorate the social society. Women's rights, labor protective laws, and secret ballots were all products of the Progressives' efforts towards progress that also eliminated corruption.
I think that his view on Progressivism is somewhat accurate. Their intentions were good and the social movements were almost all positive, but the laws passed were very intrusive. He does make a compelling argument because it is a very different view of the movement, which he does a good job of backing up
I believe that since there was such a broad variety of reforms imposed by the Progressives, it is impossible to say that they are all good or bad, but I believe the majority of the reforms were beneficial to American society. Movements like the eugenics movement, which led to forced separation and mandatory sterilization of many were horrible side affects of the recent public acceptance of Darwinism and survival of the fittest, and were an intrusive problem for American society. The regulation of the workforce, the improvement of women and children's rights, and the decrease of corruption in politics were not solely beneficial to the middle class, and were truly a help for all of the American public.
The Progressive movement had great social reform and change in government, but overall a sense of justice and morality with a quest for equality and organization on al realms. Antimonopoly, settle homes, women's reforms and equality, and reforms in the workplace were the general components of the progressive movement that all sought to improve the social spectrum.
I think McGerr makes sense in his argument that the middle class were trying to force all the other classes to act like them. A simple example is the settlement houses where the Progressives tried to force immigrations to become “Americanized”. They seemed to simply try to put things in order and think that everything would simply fall into place, such as how they thought that they could solve race issue by enforcing segregation. I find McGerr's argument of how the Progressives sort of tried to simplify matters.
Based on the textbook reading, I was under the impression that the American Progressive Movement's main purpose was to promote reform of the Government. The government should actually DO something, not just act as a figurehead. Progressives were anti monopoly, social cohesion, order and efficiency, and enlightened public opinion. However, McGerr argues that the Prgressive Movement was carried out by the middle-class, with the intent of transforming the upper and lower social classes into middle class folk.
McGerr’s argument closely resembles the definition in the textbook, but his essay focuses more so on social and labor reform instead of government reconstruction. I think that he supported the progressive movement in general, with the “new middle class” leading the charge, but he disliked that the middle class was trying to impose their ways of life on other aspects of society, especially upon the upper class. He implied that middle class individualism was a sham as opposed to upper class individualism, which was self-serving and self-deluding; a pretty controversial view. McGerr also addresses the transformation of gender relations, however, it was something that occurred as a result of the Progressive Movement instead of being an original belief.
McGerr's views on progressivism are similar to those of the textbook; yet he focuses on their desire for social reform and emphasizes the progressive belief that other social classes must be transformed. He suggests that the middle class progressives were being too imposing, trying to change the other classes to be more like them.
McGerr’s essay on Progressivism views the movement negatively. He describes the movement as an attempt to push the values of “the ten” on working-class Americans who couldn’t afford to embrace individualism. I found his evidence interesting, but not moving enough to change my viewpoint. I have almost the complete opposite view, which is that Progressive policies were the best thing to happen to America in a long time: regulations on the workplace, a political voice for women, and a breakup of corrupt city politics. Though some policies were perhaps misguided – for example, Prohibition and the Constitutional amendment that accompanied it – for the most part, I think the leaders of Progressivism ought to be applauded for their brave ideals and innovative ideas of societal and political progress.
ReplyDeleteWhile McGerr stated that socialism had a distinctive effect on the Progressive movement, I think that socialism was a result of the movement. I think the progressive movement began because of the rapid development of the middle class and the simple need for reform. McGerr is also very negative about the Progressive movement, and painted it in a negative light, while in actuality it was a very positive movement that helped society advance.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr states that progressivism was a successful, radical movement based on socialism, and this is like the textbook because the textbook talks about how the movement was a radical one, yet it accomplished a lot of things, and made numerous changes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with McGerr's view that progressivism was a movement designed to empower the middle class and make the nation serve them, rather than only the interests of the wealthy, and I found his analysis of the backlash caused by these changes compelling, as Progressivism is thought of as a movement that was able to secure lasting change, rather than one that caused a long backlash.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr described Progressivism as a movement that was primarily spurred by the "middle class. McGerr describes why these middle class citizens began the Progressive movement. He describes how they were socially in the middle of the "working class", comprised mostly of immigrants, and rich monopolists and businessmen. However, the book describes Progressivism as a movement started by woman and people who simply felt that the government was lacking in morals.
ReplyDeleteWhile McGerr's essay criticizes the progressives for using the movement as a way to subordinate other ranks of society, the textbook argues that the progressives were not so much saying that they were above everyone, but that American Society was above corruption. They were anti-monopoly in that they opposes the corruption of the machine. Also, they promoted social cohesion, order and efficiency, and enlightened public opinion, in order to ameliorate the social society. Women's rights, labor protective laws, and secret ballots were all products of the Progressives' efforts towards progress that also eliminated corruption.
ReplyDeleteI think that his view on Progressivism is somewhat accurate. Their intentions were good and the social movements were almost all positive, but the laws passed were very intrusive. He does make a compelling argument because it is a very different view of the movement, which he does a good job of backing up
ReplyDeleteI believe that since there was such a broad variety of reforms imposed by the Progressives, it is impossible to say that they are all good or bad, but I believe the majority of the reforms were beneficial to American society. Movements like the eugenics movement, which led to forced separation and mandatory sterilization of many were horrible side affects of the recent public acceptance of Darwinism and survival of the fittest, and were an intrusive problem for American society. The regulation of the workforce, the improvement of women and children's rights, and the decrease of corruption in politics were not solely beneficial to the middle class, and were truly a help for all of the American public.
ReplyDeleteThe Progressive movement had great social reform and change in government, but overall a sense of justice and morality with a quest for equality and organization on al realms. Antimonopoly, settle homes, women's reforms and equality, and reforms in the workplace were the general components of the progressive movement that all sought to improve the social spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think McGerr makes sense in his argument that the middle class were trying to force all the other classes to act like them. A simple example is the settlement houses where the Progressives tried to force immigrations to become “Americanized”. They seemed to simply try to put things in order and think that everything would simply fall into place, such as how they thought that they could solve race issue by enforcing segregation. I find McGerr's argument of how the Progressives sort of tried to simplify matters.
ReplyDeleteBased on the textbook reading, I was under the impression that the American Progressive Movement's main purpose was to promote reform of the Government. The government should actually DO something, not just act as a figurehead. Progressives were anti monopoly, social cohesion, order and efficiency, and enlightened public opinion. However, McGerr argues that the Prgressive Movement was carried out by the middle-class, with the intent of transforming the upper and lower social classes into middle class folk.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr’s argument closely resembles the definition in the textbook, but his essay focuses more so on social and labor reform instead of government reconstruction. I think that he supported the progressive movement in general, with the “new middle class” leading the charge, but he disliked that the middle class was trying to impose their ways of life on other aspects of society, especially upon the upper class. He implied that middle class individualism was a sham as opposed to upper class individualism, which was self-serving and self-deluding; a pretty controversial view. McGerr also addresses the transformation of gender relations, however, it was something that occurred as a result of the Progressive Movement instead of being an original belief.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr's views on progressivism are similar to those of the textbook; yet he focuses on their desire for social reform and emphasizes the progressive belief that other social classes must be transformed. He suggests that the middle class progressives were being too imposing, trying to change the other classes to be more like them.
ReplyDelete