Katie Skaggs
POLS 428
William Lund
11 May 2011
Social Darwinism, Populism, and Progressivism
The sweeping changes the United States experienced during the late nineteenth century
and early twentieth century occurred throughout four “revolutions,” concerning both social and
economic sectors. The first of these transformed a subsistence agricultural system into a cashcrop, profit based system that exposed “farmers to markets, the business cycle, monopolies,
and politics” (688). The second revolution saw the formation of a working class, which
consisted of subsistence farmers and newly-arrived European immigrants. In order to “cope
with market forces, these workers began to develop unions (688). The mechanization of
industry characterized the third revolution; the development of railroads allowed newly
developed assembly lines and conveyor belts to churn out products at a rapid rate (688). The
final of these four revolutions “was the revolutionary advancement of capitalism, which
brought the other three together in the greatest economic boom in world history” (688).
Many schools of thought and political ideals developed to deal with these massive
changes. The three most influential of these movements, both at the time and in terms of
politics today, were Social Darwinism, Populism, and Progressivism. All three of these, while
obviously influenced by each other, had extremely different stances on the role government
should play in society and the responsibilities of said government.
The first to coin the phrase “survival of the fittest,” Herbert Spencer can be credited
with the establishment of the concept of Social Darwinism. He combined the ideals of
economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo with the “evolutionary theory of Charles
Darwin” to argue that “economic competition must be left ungoverned…because free
competition among autonomous individuals was a necessary condition for progress” (691).
Essentially, Spencer advocated against any governmental intervention in the regulation of the
economy (laissez-faire), as well as against any government financial aid for the poor. In order
for society, and the human race as a whole, to progress, the poor must be eliminated because
they are unfit to survive and must make room for “the better” (Lecture Notes). As William
Graham Sumner, a disciple of Spencer, “we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty,
inequality, survival of the fittest; not—liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former
carries society forward and favors its best members; the latter carries society downward and
favors all its worst members” (725-26). Sumner argued that for the government to provide
financial aid to the poor infringed upon basic civil liberties, and should thus be avoided. The
entire philosophy of the Social Darwinists can basically be summed up by his statement that
“What civil liberty does is to turn the competition of man with man from violence and brute
force into an industrial competition under which men vie with one another for the acquisition
of material goods by industry, energy, skill, frugality, prudence, temperance, and other
industrial virtues” (726).
A major supporter of Spencer’s school of thought was one of the best-known “robberbarons” of the time period, Andrew Carnegie, who advocated economic competition against all
else. However, it is interesting to note that Carnegie eventually distributed much of his massive
fortune through philanthropic donations to many different institutions.
A stark contrast to the ideals of Social Darwinism, the Populist Movement advocated for
ordinary people, pitting them against the elite. Developed as a response to the concept of
Social Darwinism, which centered on industry and economic competition, the Populist
Movement advocated for agriculture, farmers, and ordinary people. Pitting “the people”
against “the elite,” the idea of Populism grew out of agrarian unrest throughout the country.
Though the agricultural sector had grown immensely from subsistence farming to producing
cash crops, farmers still suffered financial, partly because of unregulated inflation. Unlike Social
Darwinists, who all advocated essentially the same thing, there is a great deal of variety within
Populists. While all advocated bigger government with more economic regulation, different
Populists had different ideas for how this should be implemented and in terms of what exactly
the government should do. Essentially, Populists believed in equality for all in a way that the
Social Darwinists scorned.
A main proponent these ideas was the social critic Henry George, who observed that
“as wealth increases, so does poverty, at an equal or greater rate” in his widely read Progress
and Poverty (690). A self-educated man, George “attributed the poverty of most Americans to
regressive land policies,” and advocated abolishing all taxes, except one (740). This remaining
tax would be on “the unearned profit obtained from rising land values caused not by
improvement, but by increased demand through population growth,” and the massive
revenues from this tax should go towards various “socially beneficial public works” (741).
While the idea of this tax was unique to George, it epitomized the way that the Populists
were different from the Social Darwinists; this plan would charge money from the few to
benefit the many. His stance on equality is far different than that of men like Sumner and
Carnegie; as George puts it, “There is but one way to remove an evil—and that is, to remove its
cause. Poverty deepens as wealth increases, and wages are forced down while productive
power grows…to extirpate poverty…we must therefore substitute for the individual ownership
of land a common ownership” (743). Because it would be unjust for the government to
confiscate or purchase the land, George’s solution is the tax, essentially “rent” for the land. In
terms of liberty, equality, and competition George’s stance is clear: “Equality of political rights
will not compensate…political liberty, when the equal right to land is denied, becomes…merely
the liberty to compete for employment at starvation wages” (746). He continues with “we
cannot go on permitting men to vote and forcing them to tramp. We cannot go on educating
boys and girls in our public schools and then refusing them the right to earn an honest living.
We cannot go on parting of the inalienable rights of man and then denying the inalienable
rights of the bounty of the Creator” (747).
Another Populist during this time period was Edward Bellamy, a social critic and writer
who advocated the nationalization of large industries and public services and denounced the
“ruthless competition of the Gilded Age” (747). Another reformer of the time was Henry
Demarest Lloyd who used his book, Wealth Against Commonwealth, to describe the “socially
destructive effects of industrial monopolies,” specifically the Standard Oil Company owned by
robber baron John Rockefeller. Lloyd rejected the “laissez-faire ideology of individual selfinterest in favor of a political approach that acknowledges the interdependence of individuals,”
stating that “liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys liberty” (764-65). He was convinced
that they business system of the 1890’s, that of overwhelming monopolies could not be
sustained, referring to the “visibly impending failure” (769).
The questions raised by the Social Darwinists and the Populists are something that this
country continues to struggle with today. Boiled down extremely simply, one could loosely
compare Social Darwinists (to a very minimal extent) to Republicans, who continue to advocate
competition and support big business, while Populists could be considered Democrats in that
they spoke for the “little people,” encouraging government involvement to ensure equality for
all. However, these two movements do not have as much relevance to today’s society as the
another.
The final major reform movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
was that of the Progressives, which developed to combat the ills of American society that
developed during the country’s period of massive industrial growth. Of the three, this
movement has overwhelmingly influenced American politics today in many ways. As the
longest running and most influential of the reform movements of this time, the Progressive Era
boasts many prominent authors and political figures.
Perhaps the most important focus of this movement revolved around the political
machines in the big cities throughout the country and the ensuing corruption that ran rampant.
One critic of these machines was Lincoln Stefffens, who published The Shame of the Cities in
order to denounce them, asserting that “politics is business,” and saying that until “the demand
for good government increased, businessmen would continue to see politics as a way to
promote their self-interest at the expense of the public good” (988). The eventual abolishment
of the machines led to radically decreased corruption and the civil service system we have in
place in government today, which in turn led to increased accountability and improved
performance.
While the machines were a major focus of Progressives, they pushed for reform in
nearly every aspect of American politics and life. The famous Progressive author Upton Sinclair
used his book The Jungle to expose the need for better working conditions and food
regulations, which succeeded; the first Pure Food Act was passed as a response (993). Sinclair
also used his writing to comment on the “noxious effects of capitalism and political corruption”
(993). Equality was another favorite topic for Progressives; a huge advocate of equality through
the establishment of the minimum wage was Monsignor John Ryan. His argument was based on
the fact that “Catholic doctrine required that each person be guaranteed a proper share of the
social product” (1001). Like Sinclair, Ryan was successful in enacting change; many of his
proposals were eventually enacted into law under Franklin D. Roosevelt (1001). Jane Addams
embodied the spirit of reform that took root during the Progressive era; she “championed
juvenile justice, hosing reform, municipal reform, workplace safety, women’s suffrage, and an
eight-hour workday for women” and believed that “public provision of recreation and cultural
activated could…rejuvenate morals among urban youth” (1002).
All Progressive reformists believed that the government should do more to enable the
enactment of reforms relating to their various causes, though, like with the Populists, their
methods varied. For example, Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister, believed that the
“church should work with the state to improve social conditions in order ‘to transform
humanity into the kingdom of God,’” which was the foundation of the Social Gospel movement
(1007). In all, the Progressive movement resulted in sweeping reforms across nearly every
aspect of American life, and we continue to feel their effects today. Though these three
movements had very different goals, especially Social Darwinism, they all served to shape the
American political climate and everyday life, both then and today.