Link, Arthur S., and Richard L. McCormick. Progressivism . The American History Series, eds.
John Hope Franklin and Abraham S. Eisenstadt. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson,
Inc., 1983.
Claiming that in general the progressives “sought to improve the conditions of life and labor and to create as much social stability as possible” (2), the authors point out that because of differences in ideology and methodology, progressivism was not a unified movement. Link and
McCormick are less sure about “who” the progressives were, not being willing to limit them to the common people recapturing power from big business—the earliest interpretation of
Benjamin DeWitt, Vernon Parrington, and Charles and Mary Beard, or western and southern farmers—the target of John Hicks and C. Vann Woodward. Nor does the 1950s consensus view convince, especially Richard Hofstadter’s, who said the progressives were the backward, selfish, moralistic urban middle class aiming for a “status revolution.” Instead, they emphasize that the ordinary people had tremendous clout in the progressive movement, but that the programs and goals of the progressives were much more diverse than earlier studies have contended.
In the late 19 th century, social reformers made limited gains because of entrenched conservative principles: a defense of weak government, a denial that U.S. class conflict existed, and loyalty to 2-party politics. Progressive forces continued to develop by the turn of the century, linked by certain shared ideals. They agreed that corporate industrialism was a permanent feature of life, thus the goal should be to improve, not destroy, big business.
Progressives were also optimists, believing science could make the world a better place. The authors also state that evangelical Protestant values infused the movement. Finally, they believed that public and private interventionism was necessary to bring about desired reforms.
Focusing on specific reform movements in order to identify particular traits of progressivism, Link and McCormick divide their analysis into two sections—a transformation of politics and government, and social justice and social control. They see Teddy Roosevelt’s second term as the time when the old system of trusts tied to inefficient government began to fade. They argue T.R. was both a conservative and a progressive, and label him and Woodrow
Wilson as “radical” in their energy and vision. Roosevelt sparked progressivism at a national level by inspiring public opinion about reform and by creating an administration that could solve social problems. Progressivism reached its apogee under Wilson, so that “politics and government at every level were transformed even more profoundly than they would be by the
New Deal.” (47) The authors hold that progressive political reforms made a strong impact on
American life, especially by making Americans “better” voters. Unfortunately, though new administrative boards and interest groups composed of “experts” had largely replaced the old machine politics, big business still played a hand in politics by often controlling those boards.
Link and McCormick argue for a limited success of social reform in the early 20 th century. Though many laws were passed regarding housing and working conditions especially, the belief that laws would fundamentally change behavior was naïve. Carrying out those laws continued to be problematic. Professionals also instituted a wide range of reforms in the pre-war years, including medical innovations, education, and urban improvements. Unfortunately, these reformers also used a great deal of social coercion in their attempts to make life better—and in the process, argue the authors, often ignored social justice.
WWI damaged the optimism of the progressives in particular and society in general, and combined with a post-war malaise, the movement sputtered. An overall lack of realism about the complexity and divisiveness of American society and the interplay between industrialism,

government, and science, hurt the progressive cause. Perhaps, argue the authors, the goals were too lofty and they were doomed to failure almost by definition. This highly readable survey of the progressive era is not only concise and balanced in its argument, but also provides a clear overview of the historiography of its subject.