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?
In essence, McGerr discusses how progressivism was a mostly radical movement predicated on sweeping changes both politically and socially. While the actual reforms may be desirous, for the time they were very radical. McGerr also discusses the important contrast between the "upper ten and lower ten." The progressives wanted to change that concept, and this was very radical because capitalism (which America embraced) was based on this. The middle class embraced the concepts of progressivism and bridged the gap between the standoffish rich and the poor.
in Mcgerr's essay, he comments on the poor working prospects for the millions of men, women and children who made up the laboring class. According to him, they worked out necessity and had limited opportunity in life due to illness and low pay. this goes against the progressive values that we just read about since the text book talks about a new emphasis on expertised and knowledge creating new job opportunities for all.
McGerr criticized Progressivism for being an attempt by the middle class to superimpose its values on the upper and working classes. He complains that the movement gave too much power to the state, and didn't do anything to give franchise to the freed peoples of the civil war. I agree with McGerr that Progressivism did not address the issues of freed slaves, or other minorities such as women as well as it could have. However, I believe that all the power that the progressives gave to the state benefitted the nation in the longterm. McGerr claims that it made the state too powerful, but without a strong central government, then corruption cannot be managed. People have to rely on the very volatile hope that their government will not be corrupt, but they have to accept that giving the federal government power is the only way to regulate long term peace.
McGerr believed that the Progressive Era was a time when the middle class people wanted to create order and stability. The intense urbanization and industrialization that America had seen was shocking to a lot of people; the Progressive movement was a radical way to maintaining American ideals. It helped reform a couple minority groups, corrupt government, and business. I agree with his ideas, because the Progressivism was a more radical movement than other historians would like to believe. It was a way to slow down the rapidly growing divide between the rich and the poor and limit the power of capitalism. I find his analysis compelling, because it exhibits the people's need to maintain order and stability, which was necessary at the time.
McGerr provides a similar view of Progressivism as the one in the text book. He discusses womens' suffrage and how they do not have equal opportunities as men. He also states that unskilled workers were become and more more valuable to the workplace of America. McGerr shows that the middle class were accepting towards these new political views. His analysis is compelling because it provides specific
McGerr's essay seems to contrast my view of the Progressive Movement as he portrays the movement as "Radical" whereas I think of the movement as more moderate movement. I don't believe Socialism had as much of an impact on Progressive reforms as McGerr seems to think. Also, his rigid depiction of the middle class compared to the working and upper classes was not as linear as he posits in the essay.
McGerr, which argues that progressivism was an effort by the middle class to create order and stability, is very similar to my beliefs of progressivism. Progressivists, in my opinion however, though had high aspirations for social, political, and idealogical reforms, came very short in achieving the "order and stability" talked about in McGerr's essay. Mcgerr additionally argues that progressivism was a radical movement yet didn't quite affect the capitalist economy. That being said, I agree with this assertion yet I find it not as radical as he contends. The aspirations were radical but the reforms didn't fall through. One example is the social reform. African Americans were left out from the radical changes.
In essence, McGerr discusses how progressivism was a mostly radical movement predicated on sweeping changes both politically and socially. While the actual reforms may be desirous, for the time they were very radical. McGerr also discusses the important contrast between the "upper ten and lower ten." The progressives wanted to change that concept, and this was very radical because capitalism (which America embraced) was based on this. The middle class embraced the concepts of progressivism and bridged the gap between the standoffish rich and the poor.
ReplyDeletein Mcgerr's essay, he comments on the poor working prospects for the millions of men, women and children who made up the laboring class. According to him, they worked out necessity and had limited opportunity in life due to illness and low pay. this goes against the progressive values that we just read about since the text book talks about a new emphasis on expertised and knowledge creating new job opportunities for all.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr criticized Progressivism for being an attempt by the middle class to superimpose its values on the upper and working classes. He complains that the movement gave too much power to the state, and didn't do anything to give franchise to the freed peoples of the civil war. I agree with McGerr that Progressivism did not address the issues of freed slaves, or other minorities such as women as well as it could have. However, I believe that all the power that the progressives gave to the state benefitted the nation in the longterm. McGerr claims that it made the state too powerful, but without a strong central government, then corruption cannot be managed. People have to rely on the very volatile hope that their government will not be corrupt, but they have to accept that giving the federal government power is the only way to regulate long term peace.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr believed that the Progressive Era was a time when the middle class people wanted to create order and stability. The intense urbanization and industrialization that America had seen was shocking to a lot of people; the Progressive movement was a radical way to maintaining American ideals. It helped reform a couple minority groups, corrupt government, and business. I agree with his ideas, because the Progressivism was a more radical movement than other historians would like to believe. It was a way to slow down the rapidly growing divide between the rich and the poor and limit the power of capitalism. I find his analysis compelling, because it exhibits the people's need to maintain order and stability, which was necessary at the time.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr provides a similar view of Progressivism as the one in the text book. He discusses womens' suffrage and how they do not have equal opportunities as men. He also states that unskilled workers were become and more more valuable to the workplace of America. McGerr shows that the middle class were accepting towards these new political views. His analysis is compelling because it provides specific
ReplyDeleteMcGerr's essay seems to contrast my view of the Progressive Movement as he portrays the movement as "Radical" whereas I think of the movement as more moderate movement. I don't believe Socialism had as much of an impact on Progressive reforms as McGerr seems to think. Also, his rigid depiction of the middle class compared to the working and upper classes was not as linear as he posits in the essay.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr, which argues that progressivism was an effort by the middle class to create order and stability, is very similar to my beliefs of progressivism. Progressivists, in my opinion however, though had high aspirations for social, political, and idealogical reforms, came very short in achieving the "order and stability" talked about in McGerr's essay. Mcgerr additionally argues that progressivism was a radical movement yet didn't quite affect the capitalist economy. That being said, I agree with this assertion yet I find it not as radical as he contends. The aspirations were radical but the reforms didn't fall through. One example is the social reform. African Americans were left out from the radical changes.
ReplyDelete