AMERICAN HISTORY DURING THE PROGRESSIVE ERA: 1900–1916

Answer

AMERICAN HISTORY DURING THE PROGRESSIVE ERA:  1900–1916

The American progressive era is a period that was associated with political, social, and economic expansion in the country.^[1] The period started in 1890 and ended in 1920s. At the time, there was widespread corruption in the country, and one of the objectives of the progressive era was to eliminate rampant corruption in the government. The government was working through eliminating the corrupt individuals occupying government offices. Besides, there was the drive to establish some form of direct democracy. There was the establishment of antitrust laws to regulate the market monopoly and expand the economy. The government intended to create equal competition to promote fairness among the market players.

The Origin of the Progressive Movement

The movement was a response by the American government towards the results of rapid industrial development that was happening in the country from the beginning of 1890s and the subsequent occurrence of the civil war.  America was experiencing new problems in its economy such as the development of the slums, increasing rate of poverty, breakdown of the democratic principles, exploitation of labor, emergence of machines, drastic movement towards financial, and concentration of industries.^[2] There was fear among many Americans that the combination of the political and economic power was a threat to the long practice of democratic and free economic principles in the country. The two main factors that set the progressive movement were the agrarian depression and financial and industrial depression that occurred in 1890 and 1893 respectively. The low prices of farm produce made many farmers to join the People’s Party of 1892. Nonetheless, many social services were broken down due to widespread suffering of people, and this exposed the inefficiencies in many American municipal governments.

Expansion of Economy

The expansion of the American economy was one of the main objectives of the progression. The government was looking towards enhancing equality in investment and growth of the economy across all the sectors. Economics was established as a universal discipline in American higher learning institutions.^[3] The American government had previously adopted a laissez-faire economic model. That is, the government adopted a free market economy, where the decisions were made by individual business organizations. The economic scholars suggested that the free market economy was not favorable for all, and there was need for regulatory authority concerning the manner of conducting businesses. While it was agreed that the poor are in need of uplift, the group was also seen as a threat to social control. The sudden rise in the economy of America was due to availability of affordable labor and intense industrial development.^[4] There was explosive growth in business development that resulted to the establishment of large corporations. As a result, there was decline in small businesses that was owned by the majority of Americans. The progressives worked towards preventing corruption in business in the interest of the American public. President Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to be involved in the issues of domestic economy during the progressive period. The president brought many reforms under his New Nationalism campaign.

Cities in the Progressive Era

There was a period of peace, progress, and prosperity in America in 1900 and this was important both in economic expansion and in the development of cities. The development of industrialization and the booming businesses resulted to increase in income and creation of job opportunities.^[5]  The government had promised to increase wages and this drove many people from the rural to urban areas. It is estimated that about 30% of the American population lived in the city by 1900. While the migration into the city was an opportunity to acquire wealth for some people, it was also a source of problems to others. For instance, there was increased growth in the n umber of middle class individuals in the city, they benefited from the increasing income and leisure opportunities. Stores and shopping centers emerged due to the increasing demand from the high population in the American cities. Amusement parks were built to meet the recreational needs of the city dwellers. The infrastructural system improved significantly. Thus, the middle class had all they needed to enjoy the city life. The cities also formed a home for many people, who hoped to benefit from the opportunities offered by the city. There was mass influx of rural families and immigrants into the American cities to seek for better life. Primarily, many urban poor people were starving and homeless since there were no formally established social service centers to help the less fortunate members of the society.^[6] The wages they received from the jobs they did were too low to support the city life.

Progressive Era Immigration

It is estimated that between 1900 and 1915, America received more than 15 million immigrants. This was the highest immigrant influx ever experiences in America in such a short time. In 1910, three fourth of the New York Population were new generation Americans, the sons of the immigrants and fresh immigrants. Majority of the immigrants came from the English speaking European Nations. Most immigrants were coming from countries such as Italy, Poland, and Russia, countries that had very different cultural alignment to that of the people of the United States.^[7] Therefore, many immigrants found it difficult adjusting to the American cultural environment. The challenge of managing the immigrant menace during the progressive period was the fact that most immigrants resorted to settling in American cities and this significantly increased the city populations. The city services were not well established to keep up with the high influx of the immigrants. Thus, most systems failed.  However, most immigrants were lucky to find jobs, but they were jobs that Native Americans would not take. Many immigrants were able to succeed over time and their conditions improved. Besides, they adapted to the American cultural dynamics and they their descendants lived as Americans.

Prohibition

Prohibition or the temperance movement was meant to discourage the consumption of alcohol in America since alcohol was blamed for various social evils that were witnessed in the country. Besides, alcoholic addicts were accused of being economical unproductive. In the early 19^th century, the prohibition movement achieved much success in the state and local level. However, it achieved little success in the urban centers.^[8] Towards the end of the 20^th century, prohibition was a national movement. The movement was concerned with the moral fabric of Americans, and this made it to attract huge backing.^[9] The movement largely received support from the middle class, they wanted to control the distilling companies and destruct their connection with the corrupt politicians and government t officials. In 1918, the prohibits managed to influence the congress to pass the 18^th amendment. The amendment made it illegal to manufacture, transport, and sell alcohol.  However, it was not easy to regulate people’s behavior concerning consumption of alcohol. Thus, the amendment soon ran into trouble with other members of the public. The enforcement of the law was difficult and several gangs began trafficking alcohol. The 18^th amendment became impossible to contain and it was re-pealed in 1930.

The Progressive Movement during the World War 1

United States, under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson decided to remain neutral during the First World War, at least in the initial states of the war. However, the indiscriminate sinking of ships by Germany tested the extent of neutrality of the US. Germany sank America civilian ship killing about 120 Americans and this provoked the US to join the war in 1917. Prior to that, American was involved in intensive trading activities with all the Europeans power blocks. Thus, it was an opportunity to improve its economy when other countries were involved in the war. When the country finally joined the war, they joined in the sides of the allies. The war brought labor shift in the American manufacturing economy. The government recruited many men to take part in the war leaving opportunities in the industries. Women, for the first time took part in mass manufacturing of products, especially those that were used in the war. It is estimated that America sent more than one million soldiers to Europe. It was the first time that intensive military technology was used in war. Other tactics that were used include the trench wars and poison gas. The war had an impact in the American culture, especially after it ended in 1918.^[10] The post war activities realized the increased in the civil rights movement and the equal rights campaigns for African Americans, especially after they played an important role during the war. Women secured their legal rights to vote and America had a greater role in the global affairs.

Appendix

 This essay has outstanding similarities with the essay in assignment one. The two essays talks about American history at the time that the country was struggling to develop. Besides, they discuss the challenges and the opportunities that were present during the time. Assignment 1 talks about the reconstruction era and the period preceding the era. On the other hand, this assignment talks about the progressive era that realized massive economic development. The two periods were associated with political stability that favored investment.^[11] On the other hand, they were associated with immigration into the United States and increase in the American populations. Both the reconstruction era and the progressive era discussed in assignment 1 and this assignment respectively realized the increase in the development of cities. Industrialization was taking shape and many people had moved to the cities to seek employment and enjoy the good life provided by the city.

Besides, most immigrants preferred to settle in the city significantly increasing the city population.^[12] In the two assignments, it can be observed that the discussion of constitutional changes during the two eras is significantly discussed. The period of the reconstruction era was associated with constitutional changes to stop slavery and ensure a just society for all Americans irrespective of the skin color. However, the progressive period marred with constitutional changes and making of laws to help in the development of the economy.^[13] For instance, the American government made laws to allow the government to regulate business to prevent unfair business practices that disadvantages most Americans.

However, there are also striking differences in the two assignments. For instance, the first assignment discusses the period of reconstruction that came eelier in the American history. This assignment discusses the progressive period and the changes that took place in America as the country moved towards more morally and economically expansive. For instance, the reconstruction period occurred between 1865 and 1877.^[14] On the other hand, the progressive period was in 1890 and early 1920s. While there was no major war that influenced the American culture going forward during the reconstruction period, the progressive period experienced World War 1. The reconstruction period was a period of free trading, where individual businesspersons were free to make decisions even those, which went against the public interest.^[15] However, the progressive era realized the government intervention is business creating laws that regulates the same. Thus, there was a big opportunity for many Americans to benefits from trade. The telling of the history of America is best understood when it is categorized into various periods. It gives a clear understanding of the changes and activities that America experienced in its journey to become a modern society that we see today.

77.QUESTION

 Australian individuals that intentionally engage in lifestyle behaviours that compromise their health, should not be eligible for subsidised healthcare under the Medicare scheme 

Paper: Argumentative Essay
Purpose: To develop a sound ethical argument/s with the topic based around the four bio-ethical principles: autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence.
Target Audience: Healthcare Professionals (Australian nurses)
Structure:
Introduction: Provides an introduction and brief background to the topic and ethical discussion, identifies the ethical stance to be argued (against a Medicare scheme).
Body: Provides the content of the ethical arguments incorporating the bioethical principles and relevant ethical theories and concepts. A balanced argument to both sides of the topic.
Conclusion: identifies the key ethical points argued and re-iterates the ethical stance taken. Does not introduce new ideas.
Reference List: Includes all the sources identified within the essay.
Please see additional document provided for expanded essay structure
APA 7th Edition Referencing

ANSWER

Why the Patient does not Deserve Subsidized Healthcare

Healthcare professionals in Australia, as indeed in many other places in the world, do not receive any mandatory training in ethical theory. In essence then, this may potentially cause them to make poor ethical choices, besides making it very likely that there would be little understanding and appreciation of the diverse moral views that may exist between the patients on one hand and the medical providers on the other. It is true that individuals, before they become patients, have the freedom to make lifestyle choices that make them happy and which makes them most at ease with the moral compass of their world. The provision of healthcare in Australia’s Medicare programme is premised on the ethical background of delivering healthcare to those who deserve it regardless of their economic background (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d). This includes offering subsidized care to attain this objective. This ethical premise is, however, balanced with the need to take personal responsibility and engage in acts that limit exposure to disease. When the engagement in lifestyle behaviour that compromises health is intentional, the individual should be locked out of subsidized healthcare.

The ethical notions in healthcare when it comes to the handling of disease are based on the fact that disease is an unforeseen, unusual and, therefore, unplanned for event that strikes an individual and threatens their well-being. Disease then should not cause one to have to choose between either getting well or running bankrupt (Upton, 2011). Offering subsidization is part of the ethical deal then so that the collective well-being of the sick can be taken care of. In executing this ethical mandate, the healthcare providers also have to ask themselves pertinent questions. The subsidies provided are to cushion individuals from the potential harsh realities of having the conditions that the patients do. When one is subsidized while in a given condition, the real question should be whether or not they deserve the grace extended to them. Healthcare may be a basic right according to some schools of thought. However, getting one’s healthcare needs met under subsidized care demands that one meets the conditions of that ethical gesture.

Lifestyle behaviours usually have clearly outlined consequences. In line with the utilitarian ethical school of thought, the consequences of our actions matter—do they or do they not bring about the desired effects? Even from the perspective of the patient, morally good actions bring about increased happiness, pleasure and well-being (Epstein & Hamric, 2009). In this regard then, an action would be deemed right if it contributes in bringing more pleasure than pain while it is deemed wrong should it lead to more pain than pleasure. Lifestyle choices that predispose the individual to compromised health, especially when these individuals are aware of these consequences do not align with this utilitarian view. Knowing too well that their choices would lead to more pain than pleasure, and understanding that their choices would cause them suffering in ill health, such individuals have little ground to argue for the use of a provision that is there to cater for the ethical needs of a vulnerable population.

In helping explain the four ethical principles of principlism, healthcare professionals have to understand that they are bound to act in the best interests of their patients, and to treat them with respect and compassion. The autonomy principle is the first in this regard and it has to do with letting patients make their own decisions about their care. Decision-making is a critical endeavour in healthcare provision. According to Kirchhoffer (2013), decision-making starts from the moment a healthy person makes a deliberate and conscious decision to do or not to do something. A good example would be that even if a healthcare practitioner or professional provides a group with a recommendation for healthy foods to eat for the preventative aspect of health, the autonomy principle would demand that the individuals are the ones to make the conscious decision to either take up or reject the suggestion.

Even while it can be admitted that the autonomy principle gives the individual the freedom of choice, sometimes the ethical demands of some schools of thought would mean that the individual freedom is sacrificed at the expense of the greater good. It would for instance make sense when one’s freedom to choose to move wherever they like any time they like is limited because of their ability to trigger a public health issue that would eventually affect many people. Ford (2007) argues that such measures are supported in utilitarian schools of thought. One’s autonomy then must be viewed in the case of healthcare subsidies as drivers towards different consequences. Because the individual patient clearly understands the adverse consequences to their health that their autonomous decisions would lead to, it would be inherently unfair to use on them the subsidies that someone more deserving was to get at present or in the future. The deontological school, that deals with intrinsic goodness or wrong of actions would be in favour of denying such a patient subsidized care.

The principle of beneficence is the second principle in this regard. It means that in whatever the health professional does, they have to be sure that their consideration is all in line with benefiting the patient; the goal is always to do good (Fitzgerald, 2019). The virtue ethics argue that doing the right thing is not simply about sticking to a set of rules as the deontologists argue, or bringing about the most happiness as utilitarians say but rather about becoming the right person by acquiring certain virtues. The virtues that one acquires makes them behave in a particular way to castigate evil and promote good. The patient who deliberately makes lifestyle choices that predispose them to poor health may deserve to have their human rights considered in their treatment (UN, n.d). However, having made the conscious decision with a clear consequence, it would call on the healthcare provider to go beyond a mere consideration of their human rights and consider their previous actions as well.

It may be true that the healthcare professional may be under an obligation to ensure that they consider what would benefit the patient. In doing so however, they must be bold to make decisions based on the virtues they have developed over time and that make them define good or bad in an acceptable way. Lasker et al. (2018) explains that having a virtue is possessing a good disposition or tendency to act in a given way. If a colleague for instance is harassing a patient and mistreating them by calling them names, a practitioner with virtue would have the courage to courageously confront them about their actions. Similarly then, such practitioners would not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy in patients who put themselves deliberately in harm’s way and end up in want of subsidies. Such people would be robbing others of the opportunities to get the treatment that they so much deserve (Burston & Tuckett, 2013). It would then be perfectly in line to argue in this regard that such kind of a patient would not be entitled to subsidized care under Medicare in Australia. Benefiting the patient would have to go hand in hand with a considered position of the role that the patient had in getting into the particular condition.

The principle of non-maleficence is one that refers to the tendency to avoid doing harm to patients either through their actions or inactions. Every patient who presents themselves to the healthcare system deserves to have their risks to unnecessary harm minimised (Catholic Health Australia, 2001). This is the principle that would be assumed to argue the strongest for the patient in question to receive subsidized care. This is because in case the healthcare professional or organization fails to offer care based on any premise, then it would be clear that their inaction is against the ethical principle of non-maleficence. It would be arbitrary that regardless of the circumstances under which one got sick, they are still entitled to actions that would contribute in improving their overall health conditions. However, minimising harm does not mean being blind to the facts of the patients’ condition. The fact that this patient intentionally engages in these lifestyle behaviours means that the entitlement to the outlined principle is in effect, eroded.

The principle of non-maleficence recognizes that there is some harm within medical practice that is unavoidable. A good example is when a practitioner has to provide an injection to a patient even while the injection may hurt (cause harm) the patient. The intention of the injection however is to benefit the patient and improve their condition. Similarly then, it has to be realized by the patient that there are conditions that are avoidable. Once one realizes that a given circumstance exposes them to a particular risk, their role is to avoid the risk (Ozolins & Grainger, 2015). A classic example is for two people, one who opposes mask mandates, terms COVID-19 a myth and flouts all healthcare guidelines versus another who takes the greatest care to protect himself and those around him. If both fall sick and the healthcare practitioner has only one ventilator left which can only go to one person, then it would be unethical and against reason to prefer the one who publicly denied the disease.

The final principle is the principle of justice. Reijers et al. (2018) affirm that it entails ensuring that all are treated fairly and that no one receives unfair treatment. There has to be no discrimination in medical practice as a matter of ethical principle. Justice is broad, and it can be seen both from the individual patient perspective and the general population perspective. While providing subsidized care to the patient who willingly endangered their own lives may be justice for them, it would hardly be justice to the rest who contribute to Medicare to support deserving cases who may be overburdened by unintentional ill health (Lasker et al., 2018). Having the least pain for the most pleasure or happiness is perfectly fine when the utilitarian perspective is considered. It therefore would be wrong for the patient to expect to benefit from subsidized care when there potentially are more deserving cases for who the spirit of the ethical practice was intended.

In line with the principle of justice, it would be wise to note that the patient, their friends and family have to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. This entails handling them fairly and offering them the help they so desire. Being compassionate and respectful however does not mean that the healthcare practitioners should shy away from letting them know that their kin cannot receive care under certain terms because of the actions or inactions that he or she deliberately got into. It would not be ethical do totally deny them care, but to offer them subsidized care on the back of some taxpayers who may not necessarily believe in absolute ethical practice would be an exercise that lacks in justice.

In conclusion, it is clear that the ethical standards of practice demand that patients have to be treated with dignity and respect. The compassion that healthcare professionals need to demonstrate need to be interrogated based on their application of the ethical principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. The patient in question, having been aware in advance of the risks that their intentional lifestyle choices posed to their health, have to be handled based on this ground. While they may have had the free choice to take part in any activity they like, they do not have to run away from the consequences of such actions. It would be unethical to burden the vast majority who contribute to Medicare by offering such a patient subsidized care. Offering this patient different care plan would not be discrimination either. Ethics and compassion have to be balanced with the prevailing realities that contribute to fairness and justice for all involved.

[1] Azevedo, Guilherme, Jorge Carneiro, Carlos Rodriguez, and Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez. "Rebalancing society: Learning from the experience of Latin American progressive leaders." Journal of Business Research 119 (2020): 511-521.

[2] IBID1

[3] Law, Marc T. "Understanding the Rise of Regulation during the Progressive Era: What Role for Austrian Economics?" Available at SSRN 3737744 (2021).

[4] Clarke, Michael. "Priming for Primacy: Building an “Empire of Principles” in the Progressive Era." In American Grand Strategy and National Security, pp. 79-115. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021.

[5] Councilor, K. C. "Feeding the body politic: metaphors of digestion in Progressive Era US immigration discourse." Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 14, no. 2 (2017): 139-157.

[6] Rodgers, Daniel T. "The Progressive Era to the New Era, 1900-1929." The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (2019).

[7] Dobrowolski, Andrew. "The Progressive Era, the Depression, and the American Mental Institution System." (2018).

[8] Tomko, Linda J. "Considering causation and conditions of possibility: Practitioners and patrons of new dance in progressive-era America 1." In Rethinking Dance History, pp. 173-185. Routledge, 2017.

[9] IBID 8

[10] GUO, Xiao-cong, and Ting-ting JU. "The Public Administration for Caring: Women's Reform Movement in the American Progressive Era and Its Enlightenments." The Journal of Jiangsu Administration Institute (2018): 02.

[11] Gould, Lewis L., and Courtney Q. Shah. America in the Progressive Era, 1890–1917. Routledge, 2021.

[12] IBID11

[13] Gould, Lewis L., and Courtney Q. Shah. America in the Progressive Era, 1890–1917. Routledge, 2021.

[14] Johnson, Benjamin Heber. Escaping the dark, gray city: Fear and hope in progressive-era conservation. Yale University Press, 2017.

[15] Nichols, Christopher M., and Nancy C. Unger, eds. A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.