Replies

There's much to say for your assessment of the "larger context" of industrializing America, as therein is your error: the issues that so animated the progressive were neither dominant nor indomitable within existing political forms and society at large.

Quick example from your post:

By the late 19th Century, much of the country's commercially sold food was contaminated, adulterated, or outright rancid, the water was commonly unsafe, and household sanitation amounted to throwing food and human waste into the public streets where, at best, open sewers might carry it to the same local waters that provided water for human consumption and seafood. Drugs usually lacked a scientific basis and were usually ineffective and often unsafe.

Those who suffered from "open sewers" and unsanitary living conditions were isolated and already transitioning away from such conditions. The vast majority of Americans in no way lived in these conditions, and, literally, none of the readers of the scandal sheets that publicized these conditions suffered any of this.

Your take is that America "had to change" in order to meet these challenges. My take is that America deals with these challenges innately and that "reform" merely exacerbates the problems, as we've seen across the 20th century.

And that's my problem w/ TR and the progressives. The headrush of reform was unnecessary, the problems exaggerated, existing structures adequately met the needs of the people, and the solutions were more dangerous than the problems addressed.

Those who suffered from "open sewers" and unsanitary living conditions were isolated and already transitioning away from such conditions.

People were moving up and out, but just as many were moving in, coming mostly from overseas.

Your take is that America "had to change" in order to meet these challenges. My take is that America deals with these challenges innately and that "reform" merely exacerbates the problems, as we've seen across the 20th century.

What made that era different from today was the fear of revolution and the fear of epidemics. The feeling was that working class concerns had to be addressed or the poor would turn violently on the rich, and that poverty and squalor had to be dealt with or else crime and disease would overflow into the wealthier communities. The other thing that distinguished that era was the country's great energy and hunger for idealism. People were inclined to put that energy into government efforts to deal with "social problems." They didn't see the downside of big government yet.

And that's my problem w/ TR and the progressives. The headrush of reform was unnecessary, the problems exaggerated, existing structures adequately met the needs of the people, and the solutions were more dangerous than the problems addressed.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I understand why things happened as they did. Also, how much of the "headrush" was real and how much was just rhetoric and symbolism? One could rationally have expected food and drug regulation, some trust-busting, tariff reform, primary elections. To what extent was the feeling of great change reflected in actual policy and to what extent was it a emotional jolt that people enjoyed?