tire movement was a complete failure. On the other hand, other historians, such as Arthur S. Link and Richard L. McCormick beg to differ with Abrams and defiantly defend their own belief in their article entitled Progressivism in History that the movement was indeed successful. After closely reading both of the articles mentioned above, I have come to the conclusion that Abrams's argument proves to be stronger in that it is not as biased and seems to be more sensible than that of Link's and McCormick's.
             In the article, The Failure of Progressivism, Professor Richard Abrams argues that the entire progressive movement was a failure. First, Abrams initially defines what he believes to have been progressivism by concluding that the progressives expressed a common feeling that government should attempt to moralize the lives of its citizens through a series of reforms. According to Abrams, its followers flowered from various groups including female emancipationists, prohibitionists, the social gospel, conservation advocates, businessmen, and intellectuals. The progressives advocated for an efficient government that would implement strict moral values upon its people. Although most people in America had the same views as progressives, Abrams claims that "[the progressives] also conceived of themselves, with a grand sense of stewardship, as its heralds, and its agents." He states that the progressives mainly wanted to instill old moral values upon Americans by attempting to assimilate immigrants by forcing them to accept the American way of life. Additionally, they wanted to impose antitrust legislation, job reforms, and direct legislation. However, according to Abrams, these goals were tarnished for significant reasons. First of all, the movement failed due to racism that was rampant during this period. In addition to racism among blacks in the south, anti-Catholicism started appearing throughout the country. According to Abrams,...