The Progressive Movement in America - Research Paper Example

The Progressive Movement (Eugenics and Euthanasia) 28 April Introduction The progressive movement began innocently enough as a movement for social change. Its motives were noble and aimed for reforms to achieve social justice; there were a lot of the social injustices caused by industrialization and rapid urbanization at the turn of the twentieth century. There was a wide disparity in wealth among various economic and social classes due to the rise of capitalism as the Industrial Revolution took hold in many parts of the world. The working classes were relegated to poverty working for starvation wages while the capitalists accumulated vast amounts of money to perpetuate their hold on the new economic system. The progressive movement came at a time in America when there was a big clamor for a change advocacy along social, moral and political lines (McNeese 16). It was an enlightened view that progress can be measured only in improving the lives of as many people as possible, hence the term Progressivism or progressive movement. America as a nation was still newly-recovered from the Civil War and was relatively young compared to other more established nations like Great Britain, France or Germany. Moreover, the United States of America also was undergoing tremendous changes due to technological inventions. Examples of these are the phonograph, the electric bulb, films and telegraph, and later on, the telephone. To people, all the frenzied economic activities brought a new era but sadly, a great majority of Americans were being left behind. The shift from a mostly agricultural way of life to a new life in those urban areas because of industrialization caused many social problems. Capitalism and market economics forced many Americans into a state of destitution and very often, utter poverty. Discussion The Progressive Movement gained momentum with the assumption of the presidency by Theodore Roosevelt following the assassination of Pres. William McKinley. Although he was a Republican and supposedly in favor of Big Business interests, Roosevelt in particular attacked the business trust as a manipulative way of doing business that harms public interest. He soon acquired a reputation of being a “trustbuster” when he was a Republican but actually his ideology, policies and actions as US president were more in line with the Democrats. This reform movement for the betterment of all America came from the realization not all US citizens enjoyed the fruits of the new wealth brought about by new colonies and newly-invented technologies which made life in general a bit easier. A vast majority of Americans do still toil in lowly-paid jobs. There were a number of other reform movements during this time such as the movement to grant women the right to vote (suffrage), equal economic rights, the labor movement to organize labor unions and curb the excesses and abuses of the capitalists, a budding feminist movement, a reform movement for the penal system, reform movement for a move back to the farm and a temperance movement (to limit the consumption of alcohol). The times called for a collective effort to mitigate ill effects of capitalism and rapid urbanization because of the great Industrial Revolution that did not spread the wealth more equitably. The great variety of reform movements was due to the widely differing perceptions of what the ills of society are and which of these ills should be given priority in terms of needed resources and attention. Accordingly, the progressive movement itself, as a whole, did not also speak with one voice. However, it did achieve a number of successes such as imposition of a minimum wage law, maximum working hours per week and outlawing child labor. It was due to the movements advocacy that people became aware of serious social problems such as the rapid spread of slums in urban areas or dangerous and unhealthy working conditions. The Progressives (as the believers in the Progressive Movement were called) soon transformed the face of America in terms of marriage, labor laws, politics and the gender relations between men and women. The movement soon embarked on a lot of promises that it found difficult to fulfill all the aspirations it had engendered and soon many people were so disappointed although in the same vein, a lot of reforms were implemented. Among its most contentious advocacy were on the issues of race and immigration. Although progressives had succeeded for the most part in abolishing slavery, racial discrimination was harder to prevent. One of its ironic accomplishments was the unwitting resurgence of conservatism because of a backlash against many of its ideas which were considered quite extreme (McGerr 25). Among its more ill-advised forays into public advocacy was on the issue of race. It is a contentious issue that was closely related to economic issues and probable class conflicts. The gap between the rich and the poor had widened considerably and the American middle class in a way tried its best to help defuse a potentially explosive issue through adoption of eugenics. It all began in earnest when the progressive movement in the South of the United States had adopted the Jim Crow system of legal separation and disenfranchisement of the black slaves. The whites in the former southern Confederate states soon used the progressive movement to justify their continued practice of slavery and racial discrimination even after the dissolution of slavery by Pres. Abraham Lincoln during the midst of the Civil War. In an attempt to justify this ruthless discrimination and brutality, the South engaged in a series of violent public lynching and even urban race riots and more curiously, resorted to a use of science through the “scientific racism” in which blacks were held to be an inferior race (Southern 199) due to a variety of genetic factors. Most historians are agreed that race was a blind spot of the progressives and they stumbled on this area by advocating for government to impose certain regulations in order for social progress to be attained (Winfield 59). So, from the context of slavery and Jim Crow system of segregation in the South, the progressive movement was “hijacked” by Southern whites to perpetuate their practices by the use of science purportedly to show why blacks are inferior but the unstated aim of this science was to re-establish a white, male-dominated superior race. Among its more odious practices were female sterilization and aggressive implementation of birth control methods among the various sectors it considered as rejects of society. Among these rejects are the “white trash” (white people who cannot cope with the demands of modern society), the urban poor, sexual deviants, ethnic folks who were black or Asian or Latino, Jews and Native Americans. This principle was based on pseudo-science in which the societal worth of an individual was more or less derived from the color of the skin. It was founded on race theory and later on evolved to Social Darwinism based in part from Darwin’s theory of evolution of the species. From this theory, progressives used heredity and biological evolution as the basis for eugenics (ibid. 45). In a way, the progressive movement had strayed far away from its original aim of improving society but instead became a tool for justifying repression based on the false science of race. Eugenics somehow gained wide acceptance because it was supposedly based on solid science and also because of a wide number of celebrity or famous adherents who were clearly misled by its fatuous arguments. Among those duped by its persuasive arguments were very famous people like Winston Churchill (wartime British PM), the great scientist Linus Pauling (molecular biology), John Maynard Keynes (economist), George Bernard Shaw (playwright) and of course US presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Its main objective is to establish white supremacy through racial purity. Its main principle for achieving this end is to use government to improve human populations through higher reproduction of people with the desirable traits and suppression of reproduction for people identified as misfits such as the blind, deaf, mentally retarded or physically disabled. It soon spread quickly to ethnic groups. Certain types of people who were considered not fit to reproduce and so were forcibly sterilized; besides identified ethic groups, it also included homosexuals and others who do not fit the desired genetic profile. As a consequence, there were massive human rights violations. The general idea behind eugenics was to speed nature along with the help of government by making hereditary traits a primary consideration on those who will live and those who die. It quickly generated into the next topic of euthanasia since it uses the same justifications. A new twist was added to eugenics when Hitler adopted its widespread use in Nazi Germany to prop up his government by eliminating the Jews and others he considered as misfits such as gypsies (the Roma of today a great majority of whom come from Romania). It was a very convenient excuse to remove people whom he considered as enemies of the state by claiming the misfits were people who are an additional burden to the state and do not contribute to society. The progressive movement had degenerated from a purely noble aspiration to counter the more radical reform movements of socialism and anarchism to itself become a force for evil such as a justification for prolonging racism. Maybe the process was very gradual and the main proponents of progressivism may not have been fully aware of the radical shift towards racism and then unto the false science of eugenics (good genes through selective breeding) as its original purposes were noble enough such as the elimination of certain hereditary ailments like hemophilia and sickle-cell disease or raising the intelligence of a prospective newborn. As a preventive measure, eugenics was only a few steps away from becoming a tool for unscrupulous people to impose their own standards on other people through ban of inter- racial marriages (miscegenation), immigration controls, forced sterilizations, euthanasia and mass extermination of certain ethnic or racial groups. Eugenics was adopted in progressivism originally in the matter of public health reforms such as promoting nutrition and healthy diets and the prevention of the spread of venereal diseases (Engs 18). Within the eugenics movement itself, there were two sub-movements which were the ideas of racism and classism. The first pertains to an inherent belief in the superiority of one’s race over other races (blacks are inferior to whites in almost all aspects). People who are to be considered as belonging to racists are those who attribute race of an individual to differences in intelligence, beauty, character or mental and physical ability besides emotional stability. In particular to Hitler’s practice of eugenics, it was superimposed in the belief of heimat or the German sense of identity through his birthplace, childhood and experiences in growing up. It was again incorporated by the National Socialists of Hitler’s political party to rally Germans to a sense of patriotism but twisted and turned to a form of ultra-nationalism of Aryan purity. People became racists without being consciously co-opted into its ideas and heimat was very expedient to reject anything foreign and become xenophobic (Boa & Palfreyman 30). Hitler and Nazi Germany is only mentioned here because it was attributable to them that eugenics came into disrepute in the way it was used although eugenics today has acquired a new meaning in view of the vast improvements in the field of scientific medicine, namely in the fields of genetics, genomes and assisted or artificial reproductive technologies at present. The abuses committed by the Nazis were in part because of the human experimentation on the live prisoners and enforced racial hygiene to include involuntary sterilization and euthanasia. However, racism has more robust philosophical underpinnings in the concept of classism. It is a belief that people of certain class (hence the origins of the term) are more superior to others. This belief is predicated that people of certain economic or social classes are inherently more superior because by virtue of their characteristics, they were able to attain membership in that particular economic or social class, such as the cream of society and those who got wealthy. Again, the principles of classism tie in nicely with the principles advocated by the eugenics movement within progressivism and more so with the ideas of racism itself. Racism is based on belief in the superiority of one’s race while classism is based on a belief in the superiority of one’s economic or social class. Both are predicated on the wrong types of beliefs which should have no place within free, democratic and classless societies in which people from all walks of life can live harmoniously with each other. Classism has also reared its ugly head to another unlikely venue which is sexism. In this case, male superiority is presumed over and above the feminine gender and this can be seen even in legal systems in the country today regarding rape and sexual assault. In many cases, the victim who is usually a woman is subjected to a second trial by publicity by questioning her integrity. Many of rape cases had been dismissed due to the vulgar aspects of classism and sexism (Martin 1). It is the victim who has to prove her innocence instead of the rapists disproving their criminal acts. At this point, it is safe to say progressivism has mutated into racism, classism and sexism. It had been turned on its head by its more devious proponents from its original purpose. The progressive movement has failed its tremendous promise especially in the field of eugenics but it has somehow found a revival in the euthanasia movement of today. Euthanasia is being increasingly discussed in public discourse today and no longer seen as something that is abhorrent or even a taboo subject for conversations among the academe and intelligentsia. It has gained some public traction with people who want a more active role in their choice of the kinds of death they want to have at the end of their lives. As proponents like to say, they want a more direct hand in death, considering that all people have no choice in their births. This is a point in their lives where they can make their own choices known and it is in euthanasia. But the topic of euthanasia is discussed here in this paper within the context of the larger issue of racism within the progressive movement. It is a clever way to sort of cull some people who are considered a burden to society that led to some extreme practices (Stepan 194). Health care today is increasingly classist and elitist (Monagle & Thomasma 321). While eugenics has raised so many bio-ethical issues, such as promoting the designer babies, with all their desirable traits or features (high IQ, blue eyes, brown hair, white skin), the rise in new medical technologies has likewise rekindled the intense philosophical, moral and ethical debates about mercy killings, or euthanasia (meaning, the good death). People of today are activists, they want to make their own decisions and actively take part on the things that matter most to them. One of these crucial life-or-death issues (in the very literal sense), is euthanasia. There are many side issues with this supposedly straight-forward medical and religious issue but both sides present some equally strong and good arguments. Major world religions prohibit the taking of any life, whether one’s own life (suicide) or that of another person. Death is a final act and irreversible, with no recourse or remorse for second chances (unless one believes in reincarnation and a second or even third life). Taking away life is a crime against the laws of man and a sin against the laws of God. Advances in medical science and technology has now allowed man to “play the role of God” which in this instance, lets him decide who gets to live and who gets to die. The progressive movement had framed the issue of euthanasia on the larger but more currently acceptable debate on a patient’s rights. Any patient is entitled to his or her rights which include being consulted and allowed to make health care choices (the choice of doctors, type of treatment, medicines to be used, etc.) and progressives have pushed this patient’s bill of rights to include the right to die the way they want to die (the manner of dying and when or where to die). In other words, the right to die (with dignity) is now considered as one of the basic human rights (similar to the right to life, liberty and happiness) based on current public discourses today. Euthanasia is resorted to in cases where there is a terminal illness and the ill person is spared the agony and suffering of further pain and humiliation. Euthanasia is being re-framed from the earlier eugenics to something even desirable, a good death (Appel 611). The progressive movement had pushed the debate on euthanasia far beyond the simple issue of life and death; the discussions now center more on the type of death a person chooses since death is inevitable anyway. The choice is simple: an agonized death or a painless death (“Immortal Humans” 1). Progressives have cleverly disguised their advocacy for euthanasia in a delicate manner of fighting for a person’s rights (including the right to die a good death) and skirted the real issue of dying, death and bereavement. A direct discussion of death would be offensive to most people and would be viewed as violation of moral and ethical principles. If we recall, the selling of insurance policies was likewise something to be avoided in those early years of the industry, people were reluctant to talk about dying and death or even discuss some of the practical arrangements such as burial (Kastenbaum & Heflick 307). Euthanasia today has been imbued with racism and classism overtones because only the rich can avail of some of the finer points of dying with dignity. An example would be the present prohibitive costs of health care where those belonging to the upper classes can avail a better level of quality in medical and health care services. Classism in euthanasia circles often happens when the rich people have access to good lawyers who can draft their living wills in a way that doctors and medical institutions are expected to carry out in the event of an eventual incapacitation to decide matters on their own. The poor people usually do not have the same access to good legal advice and competent lawyers; when they get terminally sick, these poor people are left to languish and suffer a slow and agonizing death either in their homes or in an impersonal hospital bed with hardly any relatives nearby to attend to them in their last hours. In a world that is fast gentrifying, especially in some urban and suburban areas, progressives must also advocate for the rights of poor people to have some access to euthanasia techniques. Right now, rich people who are terminally ill can afford to go places like Switzerland and the Netherlands on “death tours” where euthanasia is legal (Pickert 1). Conclusion Even in dying, the rich and the influential and the mighty have an edge over ordinary people. The progressive movement can take a closer look at euthanasia within the lens of this new racism and classism where only the rich people can be afforded a dignified and painless death while the poor people can suffer quite interminably as they do not have any legal access to some excellent advice regarding their final step in life. Wealthy people can execute or draft their living wills (or so-called advance directives) that direct medical personnel to follow their instructions to the letter, such as procedures for palliative care, end-of-life treatments and the increasingly common do-not-resuscitate orders (DNR). This has some compelling urgency as the world’s population is getting more tilted towards the old and the elderly rather than young population segments. Gerontology is now even a flourishing medical practice. Prior instructions such as advance directives serve a good purpose when people are diagnosed with certain irreversible and progressive mental ailments such as Alzheimer’s or dementia (Pope 1) and make their wishes known before they lose their decisional capacities. The progressive movement had gone a long way from its early days of advocating for great improvements in people’s lives as a realistic measure of wealth and economic progress. The movement has now veered towards the ultimate issue of euthanasia as the world population is graying. The United States has found itself grappling with euthanasia as the soaring costs of health care keeps it out of reach for most ordinary Americans and laws are being revised to address this new discourse in the nation’s life (Pear 1) like foregoing certain life-sustaining medical treatments. In general, the debate on euthanasia is just like other moral issues such as abortion, organ transplants, surrogate motherhood (wombs for sale) and brain death. There is never a good justification for euthanasia discussed extensively since the Greek philosophers (Mystakidou 98) and the Hippocratic oath does not allow it even in the comatose state. Works Cited Anti-aging and Human Immortality. “An Overview on Euthanasia: Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny?” Health and Aging, Lifestyle. 18 May 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2011. Appel, Jacob M. “A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Re-thinking the Euthanasia Controversy of 1906.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 78.3 (2004): 610-634. Print. Boa, Elizabeth and Rachel Palfreyman. Heimat: A German Dream: Regional Loyalties and National Identity in German Culture 1890-1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Engs, Ruth C. The Progressive Era’s Health Reform Movement: A Historical Dictionary. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Print. Kastenbaum, Robert and Nathan A. Heflick. “Sad to Say: Is It Time for Sorrow Management Theory?” Journal of Death and Dying 62.4 (2010-2011): 305-327. Print. Martin, Jessica. “Sexism, Racism and Classism in American Society Running through the Duke Lacrosse Case.” 8 Jun. 2006. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. McGerr, Michael. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920. NY, USA: Oxford University Press US, 2005. Print. McNeese, Tim. The Progressive Movement: Advocating Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Infobase Publishing, 2007. Print. Monagle, John F. and David C. Thomasma. Health Care Ethics: Critical Issues for the 21st Century. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2005. Print. Mystakidou, Kyriaki. “The Evolution of Euthanasia and its Perceptions in Greek Culture and Civilization.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48.1 (2005): 95-104. Print. Pear, Robert. “Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan that Caused Stir.” The New York Times. 25 Dec. 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. Pickert, Kate. “A Brief History of Assisted Suicide.” Time Magazine. 3 Mar. 2009. Web. 21 Apr. 2011 Pope, Tara Parker. “Do Living Wills Really Make a Difference?” The New York Times. 15 Apr. 2010. Web. 23 April 2011. Southern, David W. The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform, 1900-1917. Wheeling, IL, USA: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 2005. Print. Roark, James L., Johnson, Michael P., Cohen, Patricia C., Stage, Sarah, Lawson, Alan, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise: A Compact History. Irving Place, NY, USA: Bedford-St. Martin’s, 2006. Print. Stepan, Nancy. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Press, 1991. Print. Winfield, Ann Gibson. Eugenics and Education in America: Institutionalized Racism and the Implications of History, Ideology and Memory. NY, USA: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2007. Print. Read More