The So-Called Progressive Movement: Its Real Nature, Causes and Significance
| Author | Charles M. Hollingsworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271621204300104 |
| Published date | 01 September 1912 |
| Date | 01 September 1912 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
(32)
THE
SO-CALLED
PROGRESSIVE
MOVEMENT:
ITS
REAL
NATURE,
CAUSES
AND
SIGNIFICANCE
BY
CHARLES
M.
HOLLINGSWORTH,
Author
of
"From
Freedom
to
Despotism,"
Washington,
D.
C.
What
constitutes
a
political
change,
a
progressive
change
or
movement ?
From
the
time
of
the
framing
and
adoption
of
our
federal
constitution,
American
statesmen
and
publicists
have
constantly
extolled
the
merits
of
the
system
which
that
constitution
provides
as
marking
perhaps
the
greatest
step
in
political
progress
in
the
whole
course
of
the
world’s
history.
It
has
even
been
the
common
American
belief
and
boat
that
the
constitution
provided
a
system
of
government
of
and
by
all
the
people,
adapted
for
use
on
the
largest
national
scale,
so
nearly
perfect,
so
effectively
providing
against
every
source
of
the
weakness
and
instability
that
had
led
to,
the
downfall
of
constitutional
governments
in
the
past,
that
in
its
essential
features
it
was
not
only
fitted
to
endure
indefinitely,
but
would
answer
the
needs
of
all
mankind
for
all
time.
That
is
to
say,
it
has
virtually
been
regarded
as
constituting
the
highest,
most
advanced
stage
that
is
possible
in
political
progress.
It
was
in
recognition
of
this
phase
of
American
opinion
that
James
Bryce,
in
his &dquo;American
Commonwealth,&dquo;
first
published
in
1888,
said
that &dquo; In
the
United
States
the
discussion
of
political
problems
busies
itself
with
details,
and
assumes
that
the
main
lines
must
remain
as
they
are
forever.&dquo;
These
high
claims
have
been
based
primarily
on
the
fact
that
the
system
established
was
more
thoroughly
democratic
than
any
that
had
before
existed,
on
a
national
scale
as
regards
equality
of
rights
and
absence
of
political
class-privilege,
and
was
thus
one
of
broadly
popular
consent
and
not
of
force;
and
secondarily
and
more
especially
on
the
fact
that
the
constitution
provided
a
highly
perfected
system
of
ascertaining
and
carrying
out
the
will
of
all
the
people
of
all
classes
and
sections
by
a
comprehensive
application
of
the
principle
of
representation.
And
although
the
unqualified
claims
that
have
thus
been
made
regarding
the
durability
and
33
universal
applicability
of
our
constitutional
system
are
no
doubt
ill-founded,
the
indisputable
fact
remains
that
the
main
features
of
that
system
mark
the
most
essential
differences
between
modern
and
ancient
constitutional
government.
In
this
historical
sense,
therefore,
its
establishment,
if
only
for
a
period,
could
properly
be
called
a
great
step
in
the
world’s
political
progress.
Now,
what
is
the
nature
and
trend
of
the
so-called
&dquo;progres-
sive&dquo;
movement,
regarded
either
from
the
point
of
view
of
a
new
and
more
perfecting
advance
on
the
constitutional
systems
of
former
ages,
or
of
a
more
democratic
and
truly
representative
system
than
this
country
has
so
far
had
under
its
present
constitution?
According
to
the
formal
professions
of
the
promoters
of
the
movement,
it
is
one
which
provides
for
and
secures
a
much
more
effective
popular
diffusion
of
political
power
than
before
existed.
Its
object
is
to
&dquo;restore
government
to
the
people,&dquo;
or,
as
it is
said,
&dquo;to
establish
real
popular
government,&dquo;
the
assumption
being
that
anything
which
tends
to
more
thoroughgoing
popularity
and
increased
directness
in
the
workings
of
government
is
necessarily
progressive.
But
when
the
various
measures
or
policies
of
this
movement
are
impartially
examined,
it
will
be
found:
(1)
That
the
movement
is
not
progressive,
in
the
general
his-
torical
sense,
but
the
reverse;
(2)
That
it
is
not
in
the
true
and
broad
sense
democratic
in
its
basis
and
objects,
nor
constitutional
in
its
spirit,
but
is
distinc-
tively a
class
movement,
aiming
at
arbitrary
control
of
other
classes;
(3)
That
its
program
of
reforms
does
not
provide
for
the
active
exercise
of
any
real
governmental
power
or
functions
by
the
electorate
as
a
body,
or
by
a
majority
of
the
electorate
as
a
body,
but
only
provides
different
and
more
direct
means
of
delegating
such
func-
tions
to
individuals:
(4)
That
in
actual
operation
these
reforms
delegate
greater
power
to
single
individuals
than
are
delegated
to
any
class
of
elected
oflicials
under
the
hitherto
prevalent
representation
system.
1.
In
the
Historical
Sense,
the
Movement
is
not
Progressive
but
Retrogressive
The &dquo;progressive&dquo;
reforms
do
not
undertake
to
perfect
the
representative
system,
which
marks
the
greatest
advance
of
modern
over
ancient
constitutional
government.
In
part
they
repudiate
To continue reading
Request your trial