Progressivism: boundaries and varieties

The assumption in Kellogg's letter to Steffens that the two were allies in the same “campaign” was general among progressive publicists. It highlights a fact about political debate in the early twentieth century that has been somewhat obscured by two, rather contrary, features of much recent historiography. The first is the emphasis on the diversity of the pressures for reform in this period. Most modern studies of progressive thought analyze, sometimes with great insight and subtlety, the important differences in social values and political philosophy between various types of “progressive.” The second, which is usually connected with the search for the distinctive character of the Progressive Era, stresses the concerns that were shared by nearly all Americans in these years as they attempted, in various and often conflicting ways, to adjust to and mould the changes that were occurring in American life. Both these approaches undoubtedly illuminate aspects of the intellectual history of the period for, as is generally the case, some values and views were more or less common to the whole society while others were largely confined to particular groups or even a few individuals. However, those goals which gave these publicists the feeling of working in a common cause, yet one that faced resistance and opposition, lay somewhere in the middle of this scale. They were those that divided progressives (in this sense of the term) from conservatives.

To perceive this common ground we must focus upon political debate and the issues that were central to it.