The period that covers the 1950s and 1960s represents an era when democracy was fought in earnest, eventuating in the realization of some democratic rights, particularly by African-Americans. Discrimination and segregation against Blacks had deeply been engrossed within the American-Whites. As typified by Linda Brown’s case, a victim of segregation in Monroe School, and Rosa Parks’s case, a victim of bus segregation law, segregation was the buzzword among the Whites. Nonetheless, this happened at the backdrop of the Supreme Court ruling rendering it unconstitutional. The climax of democracy happened when Congress approved a bill on civil rights (1957) (Donald 24).
As a person living in the suburbs in the 1950s, my life experience is wonderful after a difficult life that was pre-WWII typified by rationing and economic recession, post-WWII marks the beginning of a new era. America is now beaming with wealth as the basic needs become more affordable, and hence, spending is not an issue. I can furnish my house with expensive furniture. My life is characterized by impulse spending. At the moment, I am having my best meal- hamburger, and I am thinking of venturing into business- owning a Mcdonald’s.
The ‘Second Red Scare’ was coined from the phobias that were the spread of communism prior to WWII and the emergence of Cold War (espionage) post-WWII. Ideally, conservatives who were opposed to President Roosevelt and his ‘New Deal’ policies used this as a tool to shoot down this course, branding them as communist ideology. As such, they found a reason to vindicate their actions- The Second Red Scare. In essence, communist hysteria was sparked at the fall of WWI when the Bolsheviks assumed power in Russia, consequently prompting President Woodrow to overstate the threat that was communism, dubbing it an ‘ugly poisonous thing.’ On the other hand, whatever was happening to the civil rights liberties was that they were laying down the underlying principles that defined the rights that Americans continue to enjoy hitherto.
Television affected the peoples’ lives such that their social lives were transformed to embrace conformity in order to expunge communism. The programs that were aired promoted this. Moreover, consumerism was promoted, and it played to the advantage of civil rights activists whose ideas were spread further. In recent years, computer technology has revolutionized our lives rendering the world a ‘global village.’
Indeed the 1950s, as historians term it, is the ‘Seeds of the Sixties’ since most of the changes that happened in the following decade emanated from this period and beyond. Ideally, these ideas were steaming up, mixed with the native traditions, only to detonate in the sixties. One such outstanding result was typified by the labor movement that started way back beyond the sixties. To them, this was a prime time for their plight to be heard after living in the bondage that was capitalism.
In the ‘seeds’ of the civil rights movement, the main characters were Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. These two masterminded protests culminated in the series of civil rights victories that touched on institutions including education, judicial and social. Among the events that took place during the protests were boycotts of busses, an area where segregation was highly witnessed. In the South, where lynching was rampant, the moderately rich Whites wanted to exploit the Blacks to create wealth. They were opposed to interracial marriages (remember the lynching of Emmet Till- 1955).
The era that was the 1960s represents a period in American history when the civil rights movement had reached its peak. This was a threshold moment when most of the rights were realized. The civil rights movement was masterminded by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther. The Blacks had discovered the power of mass action that restrained the federal government from ending racial discrimination. One such incident happened at North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College, where four Negro students were denied service at a cafeteria, prompting a mass action that included the White students. Also, there were protests for antiwar.
During the counterculture of the 1960s, I believe the most interesting group of all was the New Left. This group that was synonymous with the college students agitated against the elusive social freedom and the lack of democracy in the universities. An affiliate group, Student for Democratic Society (SDS), reckoned that universities ought to be liberal to embrace social change.
Recently, the U.S. has witnessed counterculture as typified in the just-concluded debate that recognizes gay marriages as legal. To date, gay marriages are official, and this has spiraled over to religions, with rifts emerging in Churches on whether to bless it or not.
The critical events that happened in the continuing Cold War of the 1960s were the Cuban crises and the Vietnam War. The former was critical since a delicate relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had heightened to the point that it was threatening nuclear war. The latter was sensitive in the sense that having faced the communist threat at home, the U.S. was trying to ‘back roll’ communism abroad. My advice to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, would have been that he sustains attacks on the Communist North Vietnamese until he emerges victorious, sending a message out there to the pro-communist.
The civil rights movement pushed the federal government and the general public alike by pressing for change. As such, they educated the masses about their rights and engaged in mass actions to protests against bad governance. The university students were agitating against the failure of the institutions to embrace democracy and the lack of social freedom. As such, both the Whites and the Blacks students protested since the universities failed to live up to its standards- overcoming racism and outdated social norms. Given a chance today, I would protest against diluted social values- gay marriage.
The presidential reforms in the 1950s and 1960s expanded the Fair Deal, New Frontier, and the Great Society thanks to a new breed of leaders that were pro-democracy. As such, they initiated novel legislation and institutional reforms. The institutions that were affected included the education and the judicial systems. The most critical issue back then was the inclusion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in which suffrage was guaranteed to all and sundry. This legislation was a vital step towards the realization of democracy in the U.S. The citizens could now vote for their preferred candidates irrespective of race.
The striking events that took place in 1968 were the double assassinations that were Dr. Martin Luther and President Robert F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War. The two victims of assassination were proponents of democracy, and hence they were the enemies of the status quo- racism. As for the Vietnam War, the world’s superpower was losing at the backdrop of a failed strategy. The War was aired live on televisions, and thus, it was lost “at the comfort of the citizens’ living room” (Donald 34). Consequently, with these events, a series of protests were inevitable. With regards to the presidential campaigns of the day, Wallace’s campaign was hurting the Democrat candidate (Humphrey) the most because they represented opposing manifestos. While Wallace was an anti-civil rights proponent, Humphrey was the opposite.
The late 1960s and the early 1970s represent periods in U.S. history typified by a series of protests that were agitating for changes in civil rights and social norms. The federal government succumbed to a number of demands fronted by civil rights activists and university students. Consequently, there was a dilution in social values, and the Christian values were at stake. In effect, the Republican candidate, Nixon (a conservative), was appealing to a majority, consequently clinched the presidency. In effect, he transformed the judicial, religious, education, and financial institutions to promote the principles of conservatives. As a result, the social values were realized. Nonetheless, civil rights achievements and progress were hampered. For instance, Nixon’s administration frustrated efforts for integration in the education sector by reversing the Great Society Programs, e.g., school bussing.
President Richard M. Nixon clinched the presidency at a time when America was at the peak of the civil rights revolution. This was a period when the multitude had acknowledged mass action as an appropriate weapon to push the government to succumb to demands. As such, there were a series of protests, including “civil rights movements, the student movements, the anti-Vietnam movement, the woman’s movement, the gay rights movement, and the environmental movements” (Donald 89). To varying intensities, the effects of these movements compelled the government back to the drawing board to reframe its policies and, essentially, to incorporate new legislation to improve the lives of its citizens. In essence, some of the rights enjoyed by Americans today can be traced back to this period.
After assuming office, President Nixon, a conservative, started retracting support for reforms, and he remained noncommittal to civil rights. Unlike his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, the incumbent was not keen to fast track institutional changes. Consequently, he started withdrawing his antecedent’s Great Society programs. This did not auger well with the activists, and as such, protests were sustained further. Perhaps the main recipe that sustained more protests in the U.S. was the Vietnam War. Ideally, before coming to power Nixon had used Vietnam War as his campaign tool. He had promised Americans that he would end the War with immediate effect once he clinches the presidency. On the contrary, he protracted aggression on Vietnam and even propagated it to Cambodia. This triggered more protests, with the activists questioning the policymakers of Nixon’s Administration. The antiwar protests were staged by several groups, including American Friends Service Committee and Resistance, among others.
If I were to live back then, as a protestor, I would cite a waste of resources involved in a war that was far away from us as a reason for my protest. Indeed, Vietnam was not threatening the U.S.’s security since it is miles away. Moreover, I would have cited a lack of enough expertise in dealing with guerrilla war as a reason why America should have withdrawn its forces from Vietnam.
In essence, Watergate is a hotel based in Washington D.C. The term ‘Watergate Scandal’ was coined from a multifaceted web of the saga that would come to an end the reign of President Richard Nixon back in the year 1974. The events following Nixon’s resignation are what forms an interesting part of American history. The events that build-up to the scandal span from the late1960s, when the U.S. was involved in the Vietnam War, to the early 1970s, when the secret Pentagon papers were exposed. Actually, the chronology of the saga commences after a botched burglary attempt in Watergate on June 17, 1972, prior to Nixon’s re-election in the year 1973. By the time Nixon was resigning, things had simmered, and the details of the scandal were in the public domain.
Prior to a burglary attempt in the year 1972, the U.S. was in an election mood amid the raging debate that was Vietnam War. Faced with a slim chance of re-election, Nixon’s advisors thought of engaging in dirty politics to force him through to reclaim the presidency. An aggressive plot fronted by his key members, CREEP, campaigning for his re-election, acted by sneaking into the Democratic National Committee’s offices in Watergate, “stole top-secret documents and bugged the office’s phones” (Donald 98). Later, a bid meant to repair faulty gadgets would later expose the whole scandal for investigations to commence. Nonetheless, Nixon would later clinch the presidency with a landslide victory. Later, the president-elect would frustrate the FBI investigation in a bid for a cover-up using the CIA. To complicate matters further, he would proceed to fire stubborn staff. Moreover, he would later proceed to finance the burglars in his infamous ‘hush money’ plan. The height of the scandal unfolds in court after Nixon was compelled to release incriminating evidence detailing his involvement in the Watergate scandal. He later resigns as the President of the U.S. on August 8, with his successor, Gerald Ford, controversially pardoning him for all the crimes committed.
The ideas that directed Nixon Administration’s foreign policy were the threat of both communism and the spread of nuclear weapons. As such, he reconciled with Communist China in Beijing and agreed with the Soviet Union to impose disarmament measures in a bid to regulate arms.
In the mid-1970s, just before Nixon resigned, America witnessed a change in foreign policy. The Nixon Administration’s foreign policy reverted from a more combative policy to a less aggressive one. This is evident by the Vietnamization Program that was initiated by President Nixon, which was to gradually withdraw forces as he engaged South Vietnamese troops to take over. As the years wore on in the post-Nixon era, the policy adopted by Carter’s administration was diplomacy. For instance, the U.S. had to boycott Olympics in Russia owing to the host’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1977. President Carter proceeded with his foreign policies, which were motivated by his strong religious background. At one point in the year 1978, he managed to reconcile Egypt and Israel on border issues. Moreover, he offered massive support to the Shah of Iran; however, this did not augur well with a rival faction, Mullah, a group responsible for the infamous Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-80).
Following the American Civil War (1961-65) that had left much of the Southern States in despair, it was necessary that the federal government reconstruct America, and in particular, the South. In essence, as Foner alludes in his book- Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, the Northern States sympathized with their counterparts owing to the gravity of destruction that was the South. The issues that fuelled the War were slavery and the spread of the same to the newly acquired States of the West. While the Southerners were pro-slavery, their Northern counterparts were anti-slavery. A Northern victory marked the end of slavery, and the Blacks were granted voting rights. Moreover, the South was reconstructed; schools, roads, bridges, and hospitals were constructed. Most importantly, there were amendments in the constitution, i.e., 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, that briefly alleviated the problems faced by the Blacks (Foner 130).
Why Reconstructionn ended in the 1876 presidential election?
The year 1876, when the U.S. was holding its presidential elections, goes down in history as the day when reconstruction came to an abrupt end thanks to the compromise that was the presidency. The compromise that was arrived at between the Republican flag bearer (anti-slavery) and his Democrat counterpart (pro-slavery) resulted in the disenfranchisement of the Blacks, and hence the status quo.
Basically, prior to the aforementioned compromise that served a major blow to the Blacks, the Republicans had been fighting with the Democrats to reserve suffrage for the Blacks. As such, as in the year 1873, the Republicans were tiring of the struggle to sustain the fight. The peak of the struggle was manifested in the run-up to the 1876 presidential election when the President, Grant, sent troops to the several Southern States for the sake of protecting Black’s voting rights. This happened at the backdrop of a spirited campaign by the Democrat Whites in a bid to shrink the Republican votes. In an effort to achieve their goal, they used intimidation as well as violence meted on the Blacks. Reconstruction was formally terminated following a disputed presidential election of the year 1876. Ideally, whatever happened was that there existed a stalemate in declaring a winner in Tilden (Democrat) versus Hayes (Republican) presidential race since none had gathered a majority vote. Tilden would later concede defeat on conditions that reconstruction ends and that the Blacks are disenfranchised. This was agreed by Hayes, who was declared the winner.
How did the 1873 panic and economic depression create racial and class conflicts in the North and South?
The 1873 panic, including recession, deflation, and inflation, as a consequence of the preceding corruptive deals and scandals that the government was embroiled in at the beginning of reconstruction (1869). The era prior to 1873 was a period typified by grand corruptive deals and scandals. First, there was the ‘Era of Good Stealings,’ the period when crafty individuals swindled the government off finances. For instance, the duo of Fisk and Gould was involved in a scheme to drastically inflate the prices of gold, forcing the treasury to exploit its gold reservoirs in a bid to lower its prices, only to be purchased later by the two. As such, they sold back the gold at massive profits. Then there was the ‘Credit Mobiller’ scandal, a rail construction firm tasked with the construction of railroads in the South. To this, the employees were granted exaggerated salaries with those who wanted to expose the scandal bribed to be mum. These are just but among the numerous corruptive deals that the government was involved in. Also, another thing that sparked this panic was over-speculation. Many people had borrowed loans and failed to repay due to massive losses (Foner 91).
As a result, the mantra that was reconstruction was aborted in the year 1876, marking the birth of ‘Jim Crow’s’ laws that stripped off Blacks’ civil rights. Consequently, most Blacks end up perishing due to this law. Nonetheless, Foner’s analysis on the perishing Blacks has been given little attention in his book, yet most of them passed on.
What role did the Federal Freedmen’s Bureau play in reconstruction in the South?
The Federal Freedmen’s Bureau was formed just before Lee, a Confederate General, conceded defeat and hence surrendered to the Northerners. The sole purpose of the Bureau was to assist U.S.’s former slaves and poor white Southerners in the post-Civil War era. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the South lay in ruins; the plantation lands were abandoned, and infrastructure was destroyed. Nonetheless, the blacks were freed from the bondage that was slavery. The Bureau based its operations on the former States (11) that had threatened to secede. As such, its operations were organized into districts in the very States.
In the course of its operations, this organization provided foodstuffs to more than a million people. Moreover, they built schools and were keen to provide Medicare. They negotiated on behalf of the former slaves with regards to contractual terms, and they too found solutions to labor disputes. They helped in the restoration of marriage among slaves and also supported the Black veterans. Furthermore, they were the originators of colleges, e.g., Fisk University in Nashville. However, Foner’s exploration of the positive contribution of the Federal Freedmen’s Bureau is not comprehensively covered, yet they contributed much to the development of the South. Forner dwells much on their negativities.
In what ways was the United States Constitution amended during post-Civil War Reconstruction, what role did partisan politics play, and why were these amendments important?
Also referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments, the post-Civil War Amendments were initiated, as the name suggests, in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of formalizing the desired changes following reconstruction of the U.S. The amendments effected were the trio of “Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments that are found in the U.S.’s Constitution today” (Foner 183). The details of these amendments were to offer the deprived the rights and protection which was lacking in the pre-Civil War. The targeted group was the slaves- the Blacks, who came to enjoy partial freedom as they were freed, and discrimination was rendered illegal. In particular, the Thirteenth Amendment was the one that made slavery an illegal practice, and as such, it was abolished. This functioned to unite the warring factions- the North and the South. This step also triggered the legalization of other ensuing legal actions. The Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, crafted the terms that defined one’s citizenship. To this, the stakeholders had envisioned the swelling population of the U.S. hence;, it was necessary that they redefine it to encompass this group. Finally, the Fifteenth Amendment was the suffrage rights that gave all and sundry the right to vote irrespective of color or sexual orientation. Ideally, these changes were realized because of partisan interests. Essentially, these changes were brought about by the Republicans. The Democrats (the South) were opposed to it.
How did the idea of moderate (Presidential) Reconstruction differ from more radical (Congressional) Reconstruction?
The differences in the ideas pitting the moderate (Presidential) versus the radical (congressional) reconstructions have their roots back in 1866 when President Johnson vetoed a bill that was meant to curtail the life span of the contentious Freedmen’s Bureau. Nonetheless, he would make the later ascent to it. With Congress leaning towards the Republicans, the radicals passed a crucial bill, the Civil Rights Bill, and also the Fourteenth Amendment Bill seeking to grant suffrage to all citizens and deny employment opportunities to the Confederates. Basically, the amendment put hard-line measures against the Confederates, rendering them vulnerable. In effect, President Johnson toured the country in protest of the radical ideologies. This dented his popularity a great deal. Vitally, the weakness of Foner’s book is seen when he treats, lightly, the issue of impeachment of President by Congress following the former’s abuse of the Tenure of Office Act (he fired Edwin M. Stanton). This was an important factor that was a tug-of-war pitting the President and the Congress (Foner 201).
In conclusion, while Foner’s works represent one of the best among the scholarly works in American history, his light treatment of some elements of great importance makes his works incomplete. An issue such as the death of African-Americans represents one of the grievous issues that ought to have been analyzed at greater lengths. I reckon that had Foner indiscriminately expounded on such elements in his book; his work wouldn’t have generated much criticism.
Progressive Movement, as described by McGerr, emerged in the U.S. owing to the social and economic crises that emanated as a result of urbanization and industrialization that was sweeping across nations in the nineteenth century. With time, the movement evolved from what it was to a reform movement, and finally, it changed into a greater political movement. Essentially, Progressives were opposed to Social Darwinism, and hence believed that the government had the answers vital in solving the peoples’ problems (poverty, racism, violence, class conflicts among others). They believed that these problems could be resolved through better education, transparent government, an effective workplace, and a safer niche. With the weapon that was education, the middle-class believed that they had powers to compel the government to change. Indeed, through struggles, and after several decades that span all the way to the late 20th century, they realized their dreams.
In the book ‘A Fierce Discontent’ by McGerr, the Author coins his ideas of the Progressives around a number of themes that include association, class conflicts, and Americanization. Nonetheless, the content of this book is not limited to the aforementioned themes, as one can derive several others from the same. The literature that follows is an attempt to critically look at McGerr’s works with respect to aforesaid thematic. In synopsis, this represents the thesis of this paper.
To begin with, ‘association’ is a unification effort forged by the Progressives in an effort meant to efface the racial differences and individualism that were deeply embroidered within the American society. In spite of all the efforts driving reforms, racial discrimination was an outstanding factor central in derailing the successes of Progressives. Contrary to the rest of the society’s mindset that favored individualism, Progressives embraced socialism. Ideally, ‘association’ was the buzzword that drove Progressives’ ideas. In his book, McGerr notes that “segregation, or ‘Jim Crow,’ was in many respects a natural development in a society that was becoming more accepting of regulation, and yet was still mired in age-old racial strife” (McGerr 67). With this, it was not astonishing that Progressives held a constant fear that was social conflict. In response to this, Progressives thought that revolutionizing both the urban and the rural niches would help avert such fears that were threatening to spark violence among White immigrants, race, farmers, laborers, and the working class. As McGerr puts it, Progressives detested racism, and as such, they denounced it. To this, he says Progressives “openly abhorred lynching and lawless mob violence, and felt that African-Americans could best improve themselves behind a sort of ‘legal shield’ that would also placate conservative Whites” (McGerr 98).
While I concur with McGerr’s depiction of the details of this theme (association), my opinion of his coverage of the element that is race, extended to the Eastern and Southern European White immigrants, is that it was not given comprehensive coverage. Essentially, the European immigrants were also viewed as racially inferior. Ideally, it was from these immigrants when pseudo-science that is ‘eugenics’ emerged. This would later be embroidered in the Nazi government. I would have loved to see McGerr’s work expound on this issue to make his works comprehensive. Moreover, McGerr’s key weakness is manifested in his uneven analysis of this element throughout his works vis-a-vis elements such as gender and class. In fact, in his book, this element appears later on page 130, while the others are addressed from the beginning of the book in the first chapters. This reveals McGerr’s belief that class and gender were the chief elements that drove Progressives’ agenda and that race was a secondary factor. Moreover, he later dwells on women’s activism coupled with feminism. As such, he does not bring Blacks activism’s ideologies during this Progressive Era. At least he ought to have mentioned the contributions of Blacks that led to their shifting to the Northern cities.
Class conflicts in McGerr’s works cover a better part of his book. According to him, class conflict was the main recipe that was the ensuing rift among the American society, and as such, it functioned as an impediment to what some historians term ‘utopia’ of a Progressives’ idea. Ideally, such a setting envisioned a society that had “no zymotic diseases, no poverty, no drunkenness, no crime, and no police, but has a culture, has kindness, has cheapness, and has equality” (McGerr 106). In a nutshell, in my opinion, this was a ‘middle-class paradise.’ I believe this was a pseudo-society that would never happen, yet this was a model of society the Progressives envisaged of a future America. As it has aptly been described at the beginning of his book, class conflict has been manifested in Cornelia Bradley-Martin’s scandalous affair. The details of the event is that in an attempt meant to outdo the Vanderbilt’s celebrated ball of 1883, Cornelia hosts an event with an ostentatious costume ball in 1897 in the backdrop of economic recession. This would create utter animosity between classes, with the ensuing backlash prompting Cornelia plus her family to vacate the U.S. for Europe. According to McGerr, this event exemplified the phobia that the upper-class evoked at the hands of their middle-class counterparts, who also mistrusted them. In this case scenario, I share the same sentiments with the Author though I believe that this was not satisfactory a reason for a middle-class’ fear of the upper class.
Americanization is another theme that McGerr reveals in his book as one of the contentious issues that the Progressives wanted of American society. To this, the Progressives envisioned that since the surrounding environment is core in shaping one’s character, the same results could be emulated at a larger scale to transform the cultural setting of the immigrants. In spite of a diversity of agenda the Progressives had in mind, they were a unit in an effort meant to achieve the ultimate goal that was to make the immigrants behave more like them. In a bid to nullify the cultural diversities and lifestyle differences, the Progressives put up structure-like houses meant to serve as classes for Americanization. They even attempted “to weaken farmers’ individualistic values through the Country Life program, which ranged from fact-finding and agricultural research to forming ‘people’s clubs’ in an effort to ease rural isolation” (McGerr 168). Nonetheless, even as Progressives proceeded with their push that was association supplanting individualism (basically favored by immigrants), a good number of them were proponents of socialism. As such, they believed that the big corporations were central to changing the mindset of the upper-class akin to theirs. As a consequence, regulations became fashionable, triggering radicalism of classes that would push for the formation of organizations, e.g., “International Workers of the World (the “Wobblies”) and the Women’s Trade Union League, as well as increasing the visibility of socialism and anarchism” (McGerr 190).
On this theme, while I appreciate McGerr’s works with respect to the exploitation of the element of individualism in Americanization, I am opposed to his vehement depiction of Roosevelt as an ardent antagonist of big business ownership that was synonymous with the upper ten. The author uses it to link up Roosevelt to Progressives, which to me, I believe is inaccurate. Essentially, on several occasions throughout the book, McGerr tries to manifest his (Roosevelt) Progressive stances, for instance, in Roosevelt versus Morgan case scenario (page 157) on the contentious Sherman Anti-Trust Act. To me, this depiction of Roosevelt as a Progressive is an overstatement. Furthermore, in order to accurately portray Roosevelt as a Progressive, he (McGerr) cleverly avoids presenting his character’s views with regards to the role of women. To this, he suspects that it would create ambiguity that would taint his succinct linkage of this character to Progressive stance. In a nutshell, while I hold a feeling that McGerr does not mince words with the questions regarding individualism, his unsatisfactory and partial answers to the same is what makes me feel that he was imprudent in his analysis of this element. Notably, his exclusion of facts on this element is too obvious.
In conclusion, while I appreciate McGerr’s works that are targeted at an academic audience, I strongly feel that his book is overshadowed by his partiality in addressing elements such as individualism and race. As such, he has failed to comprehensively cover the themes, including association, racial conflict, and Americanization.
Donald, David. The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: McGraw Hill publishers, 1973. Print.
Foner, Eric. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
McGerr, Micheal. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870–1920. New York: Free Press, 2003. Print.