Michael Lux

Good Points, Poorly Argued

First off, I'd like to say that I consider myself a progressive, a product of having been born and raised in Canada. Therefore, it is easy for me to relate to and agree with most of Mike Lux's central argument, that America -- indeed the world -- is a better place because of progressivism.

The entire notion of progressivism, comes from the idea of 'progress' -- structural reform based on principles of human rights both civil and political. It is Lux's contention that American history is one long battle between the forces of conservatism and progressivism. "The Progressive Revolution" is therefore an exploration of that history according to Lux. Furthermore, Lux argues that the greatest of America's achievements have been the result of progressivism, such as the American Revolution, the victory of the North in the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement.

Where the book takes a wrong turn is mostly in the many contradictions of his supporting evidence and manipulation of historical data. The most glaring manipulation is when Lux claims that WWII did not end the Great Depression because unemployment dropped before the U.S. entered the war in 1942, but what he doesn't tell you is that if you look at the data closely, U.S. wartime production actually started ratcheting up as early as 1939 and unemployment started dropping from 1939 onwards.

The many contradictions: Alexander Hamilton is vilified by Lux for his advocacy of a strong federal government and specifically the creation of a central bank. Yet after all, it was Woodrow Wilson, the progressive era President, who created what we know now as the Federal Reserve, the mother of all central banks. According to Lux, the railroad and the interstate highway system rank as one of America's greatest achievements, yet they facilitated the robber barons and contributed to the environmental disaster we face today in global warming. Lux's polemic against conservatives for creating unnecessary wars is incredibly hypocritical considering Wilson in WWI and LBJ in Vietnam.

Perhaps most disappointing is that for a book about progressivism, Lux spends surprisingly little time on the actual progressive era and glosses over some of the major changes introduced. The Sherman and later the Clayton Antitrust Act were critical to the progressive reforms. Tragically, Lux barely mentions John Dewey and the progressive movement in public education. Finally, the Scopes trial is curiously omitted altogether, maybe because the discrediting of progressive reformer William Jennings Bryan would have introduced too many complications into Lux's simplified narrative. Additionally, can the full history of American progressivism be told without discussing Roe v. Wade, gay rights, and gun control?? Lux seems to think so.

Finally, Lux also deals heavily in counterfactuals and hypotheticals. He holds up the example of Thomas Jefferson, founding father, as one of the great 'progressives' in American history which no one questions. However, one of Jefferson's fundamental beliefs was in limiting the role of government and a staunch supporter of State rights. Lux claims that if Jefferson had lived to the Civil War and beyond, he would not have approved of Laissez-faire and would have advocated for a stronger role of government. If Jefferson was involved in the writing of the Constitution, he would have ended slavery right there. What ifs, hypotheticals, that is what the debate has come to?

Overall, I would have to say that I was extremely disappointed in how Lux decided to organize his book and his arguments. Instead of trying to fit the entire arc of American history into a progressive prism, he should have focused on fewer events with more depth and nuance to relate them to contemporary movements.… (plus d'informations)