What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
What stood out to me in the lectures this week was the discussion of the impact of progressivism on national politics. It is interesting to look at the contrasting views of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson on the role of the government in dealing with corporations. While Roosevelt felt that the government needed to regulate them because bigness was simply irreversible, Wilson saw the government’s role as being in charge of regulating the corporations by trying to reduce their size. Wilson refused to believe that bigness was irreversible. In regard to the objectives of the reforms, what was their plan for reducing corruption in the urban government?
What stood out to me were the Muckrakers. They went around stirring up trouble for politicians and sensationalizing society's issues. Really, this was probably a good thing, as it helped bring about the Progressive Movement and created intense, widespread desire for reform in all aspects of life. These journalists spearheaded the Progressive Movement as the competed for the best exposes. Investigative journalism is now quite popular, but the sensationalism of the Muckrakers can also be compared to the crazy media tabloids that overrun our nation's supermarkets. Magazines today compete to sell exacerbated stories on celebrities, most of which are not true. To what degree is this different from what the Muckrakers were doing?
The theme that stood out to me most this week was how politicians all titled themselves progressives. Even though Taft, Roosevelt, and Wilson all claimed to be progressives, their ideas of reform differed among each other. I found this interesting because to me it is an early example of politicians hopping on a bandwagon in order to gain popular support. As president, Wilson did not seem to really be much of a progressive and only went so far as to further regulation of corporations and trusts, giving me the impression that it was more of a political move to speak about himself as a progressive rather than to be one. A question I have from the week is, how are blacks fairing out and fighting for rights and progress in the north? I know Jim Crow laws were in full use at this time in the south, but I am curious about conditions and social issues regarding African Americans in the north during the Progressive Era.
What stood out this week to me, and what I have always considered to be an interesting topic is the presidency of Roosevelt and the effects that carried on past his presidency. Roosevelt broke new ground in areas such as labor relations, anti-trust legislation, conservatism, and even foreign affairs (with his big-stick diplomacy and the opening of the panama canal). He is a president who, even if all of his actions may not have been the best for the nation, definitely was not afraid to take action and this led to the presidents who followed him (with the exception of Taft) to adopt similar strategies.
I found Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's differing views on how to handle corporations very interesting. President Roosevelt claiming the bigness of it all just an irreversible reality that should just be kept a close eye on. His belief that it was the job of the federal government to monitor and regulate big business took the stance of New Nationalism, while Woodrow Wilson's stance was that of New Freedom. Wilson believed it was the job of the federal government to bust up big business which lead legislation such as the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve Act.
What stood out to me this week were the multiple objectives and results of reform with regards to the Progressive movement. The idea that such independent ideas of reform, from reducing the power of big business to the expansion of democracy, could all fit under one broad “era” is incredible. Eventually, due to the actions of many, big businesses, urban government, and racial interactions were reformed, leading to a more “modernized” America.
What most stood out to me was the relatively quick rise of progressivism and how quickly it changed the American political scene. From the muckrakers to the presidents Roosevelt and Wilson, progressivism changed the shape of american politics and the social aspects of American life in a way never seen before. The rise of urbanization and bureaucratization called for a new way of life and regulation , somethign the US would have to experiment with. The progressives were a spawn of this experiment, leading to an explosive change in politics. What most stood out to me was the movement and support that the progressive movement garnered, previous groups, while successful, did not experience the massive success achieved by the progressives, culminating with two progressive presidents. My question for this week is, what took so long for progressivism to come to the surface? Was it a simple result of American culture trying to find a way to combat the corruptness of politics?
What stood out to me from the lectures this week was all the idea of modernizing American society, and how reforms aimed at improving the established political and economic systems set the stage for the United States to emerge as a global superpower during the 20th century. The various movements that sought to gain rights for women and people of other races/ethnicities, especially African-Americans, brought about massive social change that characterized the progressive era.
What stood out to me was how broad the Progressive movement was. Racial relations, regulation of big business, improving the life of the poor, women's suffrage, birth control--it was truly a multifaceted movement. It was also interesting to see the different views people took on towards these social issues--there were the views of "status revolution", "new middle class", government regulating or bringing order to but not be at war with or busting and diminishing big corporations.
What stood out the most for me this week was the new American political scene and desire for reform. With Theodore Roosevelt's active involvement in big business and his authorization of the first antitrust investigation of the Northern Securities Company, Big Business and wall street now had something to fear. No longer was the presidency marked by passivity towards corporations as during the Gilded age. My question for this week is: Would this attitude of intervention and regulation of big business be successful or lead to a new alliance between business and government?
What stood out to me in the lectures this week was the discussion of the impact of progressivism on national politics. It is interesting to look at the contrasting views of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson on the role of the government in dealing with corporations. While Roosevelt felt that the government needed to regulate them because bigness was simply irreversible, Wilson saw the government’s role as being in charge of regulating the corporations by trying to reduce their size. Wilson refused to believe that bigness was irreversible. In regard to the objectives of the reforms, what was their plan for reducing corruption in the urban government?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me were the Muckrakers. They went around stirring up trouble for politicians and sensationalizing society's issues. Really, this was probably a good thing, as it helped bring about the Progressive Movement and created intense, widespread desire for reform in all aspects of life. These journalists spearheaded the Progressive Movement as the competed for the best exposes. Investigative journalism is now quite popular, but the sensationalism of the Muckrakers can also be compared to the crazy media tabloids that overrun our nation's supermarkets. Magazines today compete to sell exacerbated stories on celebrities, most of which are not true. To what degree is this different from what the Muckrakers were doing?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me most this week was how politicians all titled themselves progressives. Even though Taft, Roosevelt, and Wilson all claimed to be progressives, their ideas of reform differed among each other. I found this interesting because to me it is an early example of politicians hopping on a bandwagon in order to gain popular support. As president, Wilson did not seem to really be much of a progressive and only went so far as to further regulation of corporations and trusts, giving me the impression that it was more of a political move to speak about himself as a progressive rather than to be one. A question I have from the week is, how are blacks fairing out and fighting for rights and progress in the north? I know Jim Crow laws were in full use at this time in the south, but I am curious about conditions and social issues regarding African Americans in the north during the Progressive Era.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out this week to me, and what I have always considered to be an interesting topic is the presidency of Roosevelt and the effects that carried on past his presidency. Roosevelt broke new ground in areas such as labor relations, anti-trust legislation, conservatism, and even foreign affairs (with his big-stick diplomacy and the opening of the panama canal). He is a president who, even if all of his actions may not have been the best for the nation, definitely was not afraid to take action and this led to the presidents who followed him (with the exception of Taft) to adopt similar strategies.
ReplyDeleteI found Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's differing views on how to handle corporations very interesting. President Roosevelt claiming the bigness of it all just an irreversible reality that should just be kept a close eye on. His belief that it was the job of the federal government to monitor and regulate big business took the stance of New Nationalism, while Woodrow Wilson's stance was that of New Freedom. Wilson believed it was the job of the federal government to bust up big business which lead legislation such as the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve Act.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week were the multiple objectives and results of reform with regards to the Progressive movement. The idea that such independent ideas of reform, from reducing the power of big business to the expansion of democracy, could all fit under one broad “era” is incredible. Eventually, due to the actions of many, big businesses, urban government, and racial interactions were reformed, leading to a more “modernized” America.
ReplyDeleteWhat most stood out to me was the relatively quick rise of progressivism and how quickly it changed the American political scene. From the muckrakers to the presidents Roosevelt and Wilson, progressivism changed the shape of american politics and the social aspects of American life in a way never seen before. The rise of urbanization and bureaucratization called for a new way of life and regulation , somethign the US would have to experiment with. The progressives were a spawn of this experiment, leading to an explosive change in politics. What most stood out to me was the movement and support that the progressive movement garnered, previous groups, while successful, did not experience the massive success achieved by the progressives, culminating with two progressive presidents. My question for this week is, what took so long for progressivism to come to the surface? Was it a simple result of American culture trying to find a way to combat the corruptness of politics?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me from the lectures this week was all the idea of modernizing American society, and how reforms aimed at improving the established political and economic systems set the stage for the United States to emerge as a global superpower during the 20th century. The various movements that sought to gain rights for women and people of other races/ethnicities, especially African-Americans, brought about massive social change that characterized the progressive era.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me was how broad the Progressive movement was. Racial relations, regulation of big business, improving the life of the poor, women's suffrage, birth control--it was truly a multifaceted movement. It was also interesting to see the different views people took on towards these social issues--there were the views of "status revolution", "new middle class", government regulating or bringing order to but not be at war with or busting and diminishing big corporations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out the most for me this week was the new American political scene and desire for reform. With Theodore Roosevelt's active involvement in big business and his authorization of the first antitrust investigation of the Northern Securities Company, Big Business and wall street now had something to fear. No longer was the presidency marked by passivity towards corporations as during the Gilded age. My question for this week is: Would this attitude of intervention and regulation of big business be successful or lead to a new alliance between business and government?
ReplyDelete