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?
I think that McGerr's essay on Progressivism provides an interesting take on my ideas on progressivism. Whereas the textbook tended to cast Progressivism in a positive light, McGerr tended to lean closer to the negative end of the spectrum. I found this analysis to be confusing, as I personally agree with many of the concepts of Progressivism. This is not to say that McGerr did not raise a few good points. I mean, c'mon, that idea he brought up, in that paragraph, with the sentence and the punctuations, I mean, wow. Seriously, just dynamite stuff.
McGerr's provides a similar view of Progressivism to that of the one I got from reading the textbook. His analysis is quite compelling as it divides the goals of Progressives into 4 distinct categories:to change other people,to end class conflict,to control big business and to segregate society. The Progessives push to pass prohibition, provide services such has settlement houses, anti-trust work, and causal racism and the desire for efficiency show that all four cornerstones of effort he highlighted are very accurate.
The main difference that I see between the ideas of McGerr's essay on Progressivism and my own ideas about the Progressive Movement is his assertion that it was a radical movement influenced by socialism. In my own opinion, after reading the in the textbook I didn't feel that the movement as a whole was overly radical. I felt that many of the claims that the Progressives made about how the government could be reformed were completely valid. In particular, I felt that the Progressive's desire to make the government play a more active role in society was certainly valid. I also felt that it was a good idea that they had in terms of seeking to disband the monopolies that were currently dominating the nation, thus providing more economic opportunity for the middle class and owners of smaller businesses as well. To me, these desires were not nearly as radical as others might have felt at the time, or even looking back now.
McGerr's essay presents the idea that the middle class, who comprised most of the progressives, thought the other social classes needed to change. Capitalists held the idea that the poor were individually responsible for their situation, while progressives abandoned that idea both in the book and in McGerr's essay. McGerr however, points out some of the shortcoming of progressivism such as segregation.
I agree with his thoughts on progressivism. When I first read his thoughts on how it was a radical movement I disagreed with him. Radical movements that I had studied before had always caused an uproar. But when I began to further examine what the movement was doing I realized that it was a radical movement.
I fully agree with McGerr in that progressivism was a radical movement that was influenced to a great extent by socialism, and while the movement did accomplish much, some progress injured other parties. Much like the socialists, the progressives attempted to effectively "spread the wealth" by dismantling monopolies and redistributing taxes to the lower class, which grew ever more distant from its upper counterpart. The progressives may have overstepped their boundries in some areas, including prohibition.
In his essay, McGerr professes his more negative opinions about Progressivism. He writes that the leaders of the movement were not really thinking of the lives of the people that they were trying to impact. (The poor, the underprivileged, the immigrants, etc). Furthermore, he argues the largely ignored effect of socialism upon Progressivism. Personally, I disagree with his opinions. In my opinion, Progressivism and all it involved was, for the most part, a positive movement. While of course there were some bad sides of Progressivism, such as the movement to somewhat strip immigrants of their cultural ways, the movement helped many people and spurred America in a truly "progressive" direction of social and economic change.
In McGerr's essay, "Class, Gender and Race at Home: The American Birthplace of Progression" he makes interesting points. Like the textbook hints at he calls the Progressive Movement a radical movement. America had not seen a movement of this size and caliber before that called for large government. He also speaks about the class friction, which was one of the things the Progressives were fighting against.
McGerr's view of Progressivism is accurate in large part, but I feel that he misunderstood or overlooked the motives and the intentions of the middle class. It is true that the middle class was rapidly dividing and that the demands of progressivism did neglect other social classes. It truly was a middle class paradise, however, I do not believe that they were intentionally set out on making life impractical for other classes nor do I believe socialism doctrines typified their ideals.
Based on our textbook reading, I believe that progressivism was a liberal movement, one about changing the government, while McGerr believed it was a radical movement. I believe that progressivism was a liberal movement because they were trying to change things like women's rights, women having voice in the government and other things pertaining to change in the government. Although I do find his analysis compelling.
McGerr discussed the growing divide between the top tenth of the population the rest of the working class. He focused on the rich and continued polarization of the society, by highlighting the lifestyle of the upperclass women and their sons and contrasting it with the suffering of poor immigrants. Progressivism was supposedly more focused on the poor. McGerr focused on women's rights and the sexist society, which contrasts from the more political and suffrage fight of the women, versus their place in society.
McGerr argues that Progressivism was a radical movement. For example, they thought that other social classes must be transformed. Overall, his views do not contradict my views of the Progressive Movement, based on the textbook reading. I came away seeing this movement as a radical one because government intervention had been frowned upon up until this point. I find his analysis to be compelling because he comments on some aspects of this school of thought that others were hesitant to acknowledge.
I think that McGerr's essay on Progressivism provides an interesting take on my ideas on progressivism. Whereas the textbook tended to cast Progressivism in a positive light, McGerr tended to lean closer to the negative end of the spectrum. I found this analysis to be confusing, as I personally agree with many of the concepts of Progressivism. This is not to say that McGerr did not raise a few good points. I mean, c'mon, that idea he brought up, in that paragraph, with the sentence and the punctuations, I mean, wow. Seriously, just dynamite stuff.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr's provides a similar view of Progressivism to that of the one I got from reading the textbook. His analysis is quite compelling as it divides the goals of Progressives into 4 distinct categories:to change other people,to end class conflict,to control big business and to segregate society. The Progessives push to pass prohibition, provide services such has settlement houses, anti-trust work, and causal racism and the desire for efficiency show that all four cornerstones of effort he highlighted are very accurate.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference that I see between the ideas of McGerr's essay on Progressivism and my own ideas about the Progressive Movement is his assertion that it was a radical movement influenced by socialism. In my own opinion, after reading the in the textbook I didn't feel that the movement as a whole was overly radical. I felt that many of the claims that the Progressives made about how the government could be reformed were completely valid. In particular, I felt that the Progressive's desire to make the government play a more active role in society was certainly valid. I also felt that it was a good idea that they had in terms of seeking to disband the monopolies that were currently dominating the nation, thus providing more economic opportunity for the middle class and owners of smaller businesses as well. To me, these desires were not nearly as radical as others might have felt at the time, or even looking back now.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr's essay presents the idea that the middle class, who comprised most of the progressives, thought the other social classes needed to change. Capitalists held the idea that the poor were individually responsible for their situation, while progressives abandoned that idea both in the book and in McGerr's essay. McGerr however, points out some of the shortcoming of progressivism such as segregation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his thoughts on progressivism. When I first read his thoughts on how it was a radical movement I disagreed with him. Radical movements that I had studied before had always caused an uproar. But when I began to further examine what the movement was doing I realized that it was a radical movement.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with McGerr in that progressivism was a radical movement that was influenced to a great extent by socialism, and while the movement did accomplish much, some progress injured other parties. Much like the socialists, the progressives attempted to effectively "spread the wealth" by dismantling monopolies and redistributing taxes to the lower class, which grew ever more distant from its upper counterpart. The progressives may have overstepped their boundries in some areas, including prohibition.
ReplyDeleteIn his essay, McGerr professes his more negative opinions about Progressivism. He writes that the leaders of the movement were not really thinking of the lives of the people that they were trying to impact. (The poor, the underprivileged, the immigrants, etc). Furthermore, he argues the largely ignored effect of socialism upon Progressivism. Personally, I disagree with his opinions. In my opinion, Progressivism and all it involved was, for the most part, a positive movement. While of course there were some bad sides of Progressivism, such as the movement to somewhat strip immigrants of their cultural ways, the movement helped many people and spurred America in a truly "progressive" direction of social and economic change.
ReplyDeleteIn McGerr's essay, "Class, Gender and Race at Home: The American Birthplace of Progression" he makes interesting points. Like the textbook hints at he calls the Progressive Movement a radical movement. America had not seen a movement of this size and caliber before that called for large government. He also speaks about the class friction, which was one of the things the Progressives were fighting against.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr's view of Progressivism is accurate in large part, but I feel that he misunderstood or overlooked the motives and the intentions of the middle class. It is true that the middle class was rapidly dividing and that the demands of progressivism did neglect other social classes. It truly was a middle class paradise, however, I do not believe that they were intentionally set out on making life impractical for other classes nor do I believe socialism doctrines typified their ideals.
ReplyDeleteBased on our textbook reading, I believe that progressivism was a liberal movement, one about changing the government, while McGerr believed it was a radical movement. I believe that progressivism was a liberal movement because they were trying to change things like women's rights, women having voice in the government and other things pertaining to change in the government. Although I do find his analysis compelling.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr discussed the growing divide between the top tenth of the population the rest of the working class. He focused on the rich and continued polarization of the society, by highlighting the lifestyle of the upperclass women and their sons and contrasting it with the suffering of poor immigrants. Progressivism was supposedly more focused on the poor. McGerr focused on women's rights and the sexist society, which contrasts from the more political and suffrage fight of the women, versus their place in society.
ReplyDeleteMcGerr argues that Progressivism was a radical movement. For example, they thought that other social classes must be transformed. Overall, his views do not contradict my views of the Progressive Movement, based on the textbook reading. I came away seeing this movement as a radical one because government intervention had been frowned upon up until this point. I find his analysis to be compelling because he comments on some aspects of this school of thought that others were hesitant to acknowledge.
ReplyDelete