The campaign for progressive reforms, which had hitherto been carried out locally in individual states, eventually made its way to the federal level. According to Roosevelt, a progressive person is, first of all, a liberal. Liberal parties at that time were opposed to conservatism and radicalism. However, in addition to liberal views, a person must be a leader with a bright and passionate desire for justice and the general welfare (Lowitt, 2019). This person denies privileges, strives for equality, and does not stop there, not reaching the total result. To the detriment of his potential wealth, a progressive person will choose the honesty and well-being of the entire surrounding society and carry ideas to the highest authorities until he gets a reaction or an answer that suits everything, sometimes impulsive but honest population of the region.
Progressives are opposed by short-sighted people who are callous to other people’s grievances and common goals. They are not capable of great sympathy and, as a result, are ready for various forms of exploitation of the people. Roosevelt spoke of people in power who are alien to passionate convictions, who are only interested in cold calculation and wealth in the absence of control (Lowitt, 2019). This kind of injustice to the people is the main difference between progressives and anti-progressives. Without appealing to their conscience, the latter calls for it from the people, using it as a lever of influence.
Anti-progressives reduced the possibility of popular power in the judiciary. President Taft suspended the National Life Commission, introduced a railroad tariff bill, and widened the privilege gap. All these actions are not progressive. The president’s entourage reduced control over the same rich people, increasingly taking power from the hands of the people. The opposition, represented by Roosevelt, offered to introduce comprehensive oversight since prosperity is possible only based on the values u200bu200bof honesty and general fair treatment for all (Fine & Robertson, 2020). The people must make critical decisions, and the authorities cannot use mechanisms to reduce its significance.
The purpose of the progressives was to bring the people to power, not nominal but real. The power of the people had to be achieved by sacrificing private interests. Progressives singled out as specific tasks direct elections to the Senate by analogy with presidential elections, the introduction of direct primaries instead of a distorted system of congresses (Thompson, 2020). The people also had to receive unique systems of control over their representatives, as well as directly influence the adoption of laws. For anti-progressives, these attitudes were unacceptable since the presidential apparatus did not trust the impulsive desires of the people. However, the people’s will was not dictated by impulsiveness at all, and the authorities’ goals pursued a point of view that was directly opposite to this will, although only progressives named the actual reason.
Logically, the progressives were looking for their supporters among the people. They opposed themselves to the current government built on private interests and mechanisms to keep the people in timidity and fear. The progressives did not reject material well-being; they only clearly differentiated the method of obtaining this wealth. Each acquired material value must have a just, solid foundation, and not vice versa against the spirit of justice. The main achievements of the Progressives are the introduction of quality control of medicines and water, the system of financing medicine and education has improved, and the number of schools has increased. Most importantly, the Progressives achieved direct elections from the people to the Senate (Thompson, 2020). In addition, thanks to the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Prohibition was introduced: the number of alcoholics, cases of falling into poverty due to chronic alcoholism, and alcohol-related crimes, including domestic violence, decreased. The family was recognized as the foundation of American society, and many of the measures introduced contributed to judicial reform and moral censorship.
References
Fine, G. A., & Robertson, C. (2020). Reputation in Rupture: Broken Alliances and Relational Politics in the Roosevelt‐Taft Split. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 73-94).
Lowitt, R. (2019). Roosevelt and Progressive Republicans: Friends and Foes. In Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress (pp. 7-13). Routledge.
Thompson, J. A. (2020). Progressivism and US Power. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.