Progressive Era Contradictions and Betrayals

• Feb 1, 2012
• Michael Streich

The early 20th Century Progressive Revolt galvanized liberal leaders of both political parties but ultimately failed to ameliorate the plight of Americans.

In the summer of 1912, California Governor Hiram Johnson led the call for a third party after the Republicans refused to nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Johnson, a Progressive leader whose swift rise to power was tied to combating political corruption and corporate power, would be chosen as Roosevelt’s Vice Presidential running mate. The new National Progressive Party, revolving around the charismatic “bull moose” Roosevelt, however, would not only split the Republican Party, but divide the loyalties of both Progressive Republicans and Democrats.

What was Progressivism?

Progressivism represented a multi-faceted movement in the early years of the 20th Century. Scholars of the movement question its name: was it a popular social revolt? To what extent was the movement more political than social? And what is to be made out of the contradictions? Roosevelt, the “trust buster,” owed his campaign coffers to the purse strings of the “Steel Trust” and financiers like George Perkins. In 1912, Perkins helped to define the Progressive platform, setting aside language designed to strengthen the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Prohibition and Progressive Goals

Regulating or eliminating alcohol consumption is rooted in Colonial thinking, notably among religious groups like the New England Congregationalists. The Progressive Movement, however, provided a favorable social and political climate resulting in Prohibition. Historians are quick to point out strong anti-German feelings during World War I significantly contributed to Prohibition: Germans were equated with drinking. What better way to demonstrate American loyalty than to avoid such “German” reminders?

Ironically, some U.S. Senators publically supporting Prohibition continued to stock their own liquor cabinets. According to one writer, at least a half dozen Senators were “habitually drunk.” (Gould) Similar contradictions impacted the women’s suffrage movement – part of the overall Progressive electoral reform movement.

Women’s Suffrage and Wilson’s Support

Due to social considerations as well as the fear that women voting might lead to federal interference with state impediments designed to eliminated black suffrage, Southern lawmakers opposed women’s suffrage. President Woodrow Wilson, considered a progressive with roots in the South, only supported women’s suffrage because it was politically expedient to do so.

Role of the Federal Government

Progressivism focused on ordinary people, especially the weakest members of society such as children. The 1912 party platform, however, highlighted the role of the federal government rather than state or locally originating reforms. By contemporary standards, this vast reform-minded platform could be deemed socialist, yet it was conservative Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt, William Borah, and imperialist Al Beveridge who championed Progressive ideals.

History also demonstrates that direct election of U.S. Senators as well as primary elections did not result in better candidates. In many cases, the image of a “smoke filled back room” of party bosses dictating candidates and issues remained. This was how party leaders ultimately supported Warren Harding in 1920.

The Progressivism of Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election; only 58.8 percent of eligible voters had cast a ballot in the second lowest percentage of voter turnout between 1876 and 1920. Despite his Progressive ideals, Wilson supported Southern segregation. Historian Page Smith sums up the movement writing, “It was, of course, limited in its vision of social justice and the uses of the state to achieve it. It left blacks and immigrants, workingmen and labor unions, and, to a lesser extent, women outside its charmed circle.”

Other historians chart the stream of Jeffersonian democracy and late 19th Century Populism as roots culminating in Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Alfred Kelly writes that, “This tradition of reform accepted all the values of the ‘American dream’ and sought to bring that dream closer to reality for the mass of Americans.”

Progressive Reform Set Aside

Teddy Roosevelt went on another international romp after the 1912 election, this time to Brazil. He, along with other Progressive leaders, made peace with the Republican Party even as the Great War was ending and America was easing into Harding’s normalcy, another period represented by great wealth and great poverty. Taft became the nation’s Chief Justice, ready to overturn the courts past liberal decisions. He would preside over one of the most conservative courts in American judicial history.

The zealous Progressive spirit was redirected after Wilson left the United States to participate in the Versailles Peace conference, leaving key Republicans at home despite their ascendancy in Congress after the 1918 midterm election. Republicans, led by Henry Cabot Lodge and William Borah, exerted every ounce of energy to defeat Wilson. At issue was United States participation in the League of Nations. The prolonged and at times vicious battle froze Progressivism in a political time warp.

A National Stream of Consciousness

Progressivism was more than a grand experiment in direct democracy or a federal program of social justice. It represented an ideal by which American political, social, and economic goals should be measured. In this sense, it harkened back to Jefferson’s vision of the pursuit of happiness. This was no socialist revolution. Sadly, too few Americans shared the goals and those that did, like Senator La Follette of Wisconsin, were marginalized and, after 1917, labeled cowards for opposing the war. In the end, the powerful interests won and Progressivism receded into the past, waiting for a dynamic leader to resurrect social justice as a government priority.

References:

• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, fifth edition (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)
• Frank K. Kelly, The Fight For the White House: The Story of 1912 (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1961)
• Page Smith, America Enters the War: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I, Volume Seven (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)
• Philip Vandermeer, “Hiram Johnson and the Dilemma of California Progressivism,” The Human Tradition in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, edited by Ballard C. Campbell (Scholarly Resources Inc., 2000)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies