Progressivism: A Very Short Introduction

As a professional historian, I am torn about this volume. It does have substantial virtues. It covers a great deal of territory in 125 pages of text. Perhaps more important, it makes a strong case for continuity between the various reform movements of the late 19th century (particularly Populism) and Progressivism. This stance puts it at odds with most histories of the era, and serves as a valuable corrective to the idea that political reform in the United States started over in 1900. The author also contends, I think correctly, that Progressivism is best understood as a response to the problems created by rapid economic change and growth in the late 19th century, not as a specific program.Yet too often, this volume goes off the rails. For instance, after stating that Progressive reform is perhaps best understood by the problems with which it dealt rather than specific proposals, the author often speaks of what is "truly Progressive" without defining the term--for instance, stating, "progress had been achieved in 1906, though it still did not quite add up to Progressivism" (p. 44). Certainly, more reforms came after 1906, but exactly what made them more Progressive, and their predecessors less Progressive? The only common thread cited by the author is the belief by Progressives that a "public interest" exists, and that government should serve it. Yet the same can be said of most political movements--the question is how the public interest is defined. The author clearly thinks that Progressive efforts to lessen economic inequality and improve the lot of the poor are in the public interest, which is reasonable enough. Yet what about the efforts of southern Progressives to strengthen segregation, or of many Progressives nationwide to exclude immigrants, secure Prohibition, and sterilize people in mental homes (eugenics)? No doubt, those behind these measures believed they were serving the public interest, but their understanding of the matter presumably differed with the work of people like Jane Addams for social justice.The author is clearly a partisam of the Progressives, which is fine, as long as he does not overlook the questions that some have raised about them. Unfortunatley, he does just that. For instance, Progressives devoted a huge amount of time to railroad regulation--perhaps more than to any other national political issue. Yet most historians who have delved into the subject in detail have concluded that the effort was a disaster. The federal government prevented railroads from increasing their rates in line with the rising cost of labor and other supplies, squeezing profits to the point where the railroads were not able to invest enough to accomodate increasing traffic. (Tom McCraw's "Prophets of Regulation" is perhaps the best statement of this argument.) Perhaps this interpretation is wrong, but the author does no deal with the question at all. A cynic might say that he fails to address the concern because he does not want to consider anything that might cast Progressivism in a negative light. Certainly, accounts like McCraw's indicate that Progressives worked in the interest of one particular group, shippers, to keep railroad rates down, even though that defeated the general interest in a railroad system able to accomodate rapid economic growth. (Notably, TR was concerned after 1908 that limits on railroad rates were too rigid, but on this issue, he had little impact.)The most disturbing example of this tendency to whitewash Progressives involved William Jennings Bryan's stance on race. The author writes in the conclusion, "Bryan had tolerant words for most groups and 'a certain discomfort with white supremacy,' but he seldom protested Jim Crow laws, which would have risked his political strength in the South." (p. 125) The quote comes from Michael Kazin's biography of Bryan, "A Godly Hero," a generally favorable account of Bryan's life. Kazin, however, is very critical of Bryan's racial attitudes. The "certain discomfort with white supremacy" appears, according to Kazin, only in a poem that Bryan wrote and is buried in his personal papers, never published and apparently not read until Kazin came along. In practice, as Kazin notes, Bryan expressed public support for segregation--for instance, denouncing Theodore Roosevelt for inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner--and never even complained about lynching. This last is particularly damning, because some white southern politicians did denounce lynching without destroying their careers, and a strong statement by Bryan might have strengthened their hand. Bryan did not simply, as many northern Democrats did, ignore the racial attitudes and policies of southern Democrats, but he often endorsed them. Although this book does not technically quote Kazin out of context, it uses his writing in a dishonest way.

This book covers the rise and fall of the Progressive movement, a sociopolitical trend that occurred between the 1890s and 1930s. Since then, the division over America's best system of governance has changed little in the United States.While big businesses, representing a minority of Americans, use their money to influence the government, supporters of the Progressive movement believe that the power they delegate to this same government should protect the majority against big interests and corporate greed.In his book's introduction, Nugent spells out the similarities between the past and the present. "The consistent conviction of virtually all Progressives was that a public interest or common good really existed," Nugent writes."Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and conservatives of similar mind have denied that there are such things, and as Reagan famously said, government itself was the problem, not the solution. The result in the post-Reagan years has been legislation and political ideology that is radically individualistic," he argues.By revisiting statements by Republican-President-turned-Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, Nugent shows that the Progressives' battle against Reagan's school of individualism has remained the same since the early 20th century. "There are many sincere men who now believe in unrestricted individualism in business, just as there were formerly many sincere men who believed in slavery," according to Roosevelt.Nugent writes that the boom resulting from post American Civil War construction created a small class of very rich Americans, and while these Americans monopolized sectors and collected colossal revenues, the majority of Americans suffered from poverty, child labor, long labor hours, low wages and minimal government attention.Farmers and workers started organizing their rank and file into unions and similar groups that wielded political influence. By the time Theodore Roosevelt finished his elected term in office in 1908 he had shifted from the right to the left and inaugurated a wave of Progressive legislations that continued way until the 1930s.These legislations included the 16th Amendment (ratified in 1913 and giving the government the power to levy taxes) and the 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920 and giving women the right to vote).However, despite all their Progressivism and justice-seeking, the movement suffered from a skewed understanding of race relations and often argued in favor of White Man supremacy and the necessity of maintaining segregation.Another Progressivism failure, to an extent, was the support prohibition of alcohol received from a great segment of Progressives. At the, it seems, Progressives failed to distinguish between a government that should protect its citizens against big business greed and one that believes that ethical guidance is part of its role.Walter Nugent does a magnificent job presenting the debate of the time in his really "Very Short Introduction" to Progressivism, a quick and refreshing read indeed.

I bought this book because I was looking for a short history or the Progressive movement from an unbiased viewpoint. I was thoroughly disappointed. The book provides some interesting facts about Progressivism, but it is hopelessly biased in favor of everything Progressive. The author misses no opportunity to champion the objectives and rationale of the Progressives, and in every chapter I felt pushed to agree. If you want to read an introduction to the Progressive movement from a Progressive viwpoint, this is the book for you. If you want an brief, unbiased history of Progressivism, I would not buy or read this book.

20 years that changed the U.S.

This is a great primer. I'll be taking a course on history of the Progressive Era and wanted to just do a little light preparation. The book served the purpose well.

It was like reading a history book.

I had always been confused about progressives but this cleared everything up for me, Very Short Introductions are a very good study guide on many subjects

love history. this is history!

Best book of the "Very Short" series that I've read. Interesting reading and well-written.