Why the Progressive Succeeded but the Populists Not

636 Words3 Pages
After reviewing the weekly readings, I feel interest in two reforms between the populists and the progressives. The reason of raising the populism movement was poor farmers trying to defense of their homes and families to make a better life. The progressive movement was an attempt to control the government through reform and provide protection to all classes’ welfare. The major difference between these two movements is that the Populist movement was comprised of farmers and the Progressives were primarily upper- and middle-class city dwellers. I believe that there should be some reasons that the Progressives succeeded and the Populists did not. I have come up with three points for this fact. First, the Populist movement was comprised of poor farmers while the Progressives were primarily upper or middle class city dweller, which means the progressives have more financial support than the Populist. The Progressive Reform was not only limited to the middle and lower classes. For example, there were some upper class such as Alexander Cassatt, who was in charge of the Pennsylvania Railroad also supporters of regulation and political Reform. Second, the Populist movement was fighting for money while the Progressives were pursuing higher profit. People who made up primarily of poor farmers just want to have a common life with others; they found that movement did influence the economy and politics. Then the Populist Party started to fight for moral regeneration, political democracy, and anti-monopoly. In weekly reading, The Common People Are Being Robbed, Mary indicated that “The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors”, and so did the farmers. They just need money, land, and transportation but didn’t want to defy the government. As the reading shows, the progressive movement started with raising public voice about reforming by publicity the book like Upton
Open Document