To what extent was the Progressive Era actually progressive?Note:
Ha! Definitions mean everything. If "A is A", then the "progressive" era was progressive, but does what that mean? I'm sure you know. [ You're debating it. But when it comes to the later Progressives, they lead directly to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who both claimed to be Progressives in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and I would imagine such figures as W.E.B Du Bois and Elihu Root and John Dewey- to judge by their words and their actions and their politics.
Do you think we now live in a Progressive era? Did the early progressives actually purify government of outside forces of money and power, as they had hoped? Looking at Obama, it would seem only to have gotten worse.
] Auto answered|Score 1Note:
I'm sorry that that wasn't a good answer. Please hold on while I contact an expert.Weegy:
To what extent was the Progressive Era actually progressive?
The American constitution prior to the Progressives was oriented toward a local form of democracy centered in the states. [ The Senate was elected by the state legislatures, and because no law could be passed without the concurrence of the Senate, the States had a natural check against over-expansion of federal legislation or control. Socialists had the idea of a centralized political democracy which was less than democratic because the governing agents were answerable to a greatly enlarged polity. To accomplish this, they supported the Seventeenth Amendment, stripping the states (unconstitutionally) of their representation in the national councils. (FYI: It is unconstitutional because the Constitution prohibits a State from being stripped of its representation without its consent, and most of the states in the South plus Rhode Island and Utah refused to ratify).
Let me put that another way: In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, an important debate was over how many representatives were needed to represent the American people. One per 40,000 was selected, changed to 1 per 30,000 at the last minute when Washington penciled that in. This and the limitations imposed on the national councils actually increases the democracy by moving the fountainhead of legislation closer to the local level, where representatives actually represent a fewer number of people. Indeed, the states in New England were so small that a representative's constituency actually could be less than 100 people. Clearly, that is much closer to participatory democracy than 1 per 30,000, and when you consider today, much closer than the 1 per 600,000 which serves the modern Congress. Representatives actually know and live among the represented, so they truly represent.
The flip side of that, of course, is that the growth and spread of capitalism created problems so geographically spread out that local legislation probably could not redress them. In that sense, one would have to acknowledge that Progressivism succeeded, but that judgment is made by us after the fact. ] Expert answered|lpeples|Points 180|
All Categories|No Subcategories|Expert answered|Rating 0| 7/27/2013 11:50:47 PM