Why have historians found it impossible to agree on any single explanation for the rise of the progressivism in the early twentieth century and on any single profile of the progressives?

This, the 'Middle Class', interpretation of the Progressive Movement is clearly a one sided argument, written by Middle Class historians. Hofstadter even goes as far as to say that 'the immigrant' (which he clearly separates from the rest of traditional American society and can be taken as the new urban Working Class) were "usually at odds with the reform aspirations of the American Progressive."Hofstadter is fairly typical of historians of the middle class interpretation of the Progressive Movement in that he clearly felt that 'the immigrant' was not a worthy part of American society. At the very least, Hofstadter looked down his nose at the new lower urban class.

Without insinuating that the Middle Class played no part in the Progressive Movement, it may be suggested that their role has been exaggerated. This must surely be expected when the background of historians from the early and mid-twentieth century is considered. Certainly the profession was dominated by people of the Middle and Upper Classes, which must partly explain the dominance of the Middle Class Progressive ethos.

Historians like Joseph Huthmacher set about rectifying this situation in the second half of the century. Using the legislative houses of New York and Massachusetts as his examples, Huthmacher attempted to show that "many reform bills received more uniform and consistent support from the urban lower class than they received from the urban middle class or agrarian representatives."Hutmacher goes on to point out that many Middle Class reformers realised this and planned their legislative strategy to suit. Huthmacher and other who support his argument have certainly done enough to ensure that Progressivism should clearly be viewed as more than a testament to Middle Class dynamism.

Inevitably with Hutmachers theisis there comes a different reason for  the rise of Progressivism than that of the Middle Class analysis. Huthmacher points to the fact that the urban Working Class were motavated by experience. The urban working class knew only to well about the ills of earlt twetieth century society because it surronded them day in and day out. Hutmacher and others argue that "in the midst of alternately shivering and sweltering humanity in ancient rat infested rookeries" as the vast majority of the urban working class were, they were much more motavated to attempt reform. Convincingly, Huthmacher states that the urban Working Class "felt needs, largely of the bread and butter type, were of the here and now, and not of the Middle Class variety which fastened upon further advancement to a higher station from an already fairly comfortable one." Later in the same passage he blasts the Middle Class Progressives for "envisaging a kingdom of God on Earth."

Huthmacher clearly despises the Yankee-Middle Class reformers who he felt had wrongly been attributed with the credit for the rise of American Liberalism for such a long period. In fairness though, judging by his name Hutmacher does not sound the typical 'Protestant Anglo-Saxon' of British origins that many Middle Class Progressive history subscibers do. Hutmachers case can be critised for being both selective and a flawed evaluation.

This is not simply because of his bias and origins but as a result of the evidence he uses to back up his conclusions. Historians such as Richard Abrams have disputed the factual basis of his findings for his two example states, New York and Massachusetts. Others such as Barton Bernstein and Allen Matusow have critisied Huthmacher for not treating the actions of state legislators as separate and the wishes of their constiuents seperately.

Bernstein and Allen Matusw also claim that Huthmacher is guilty of failinf to take account of the different groups held within the boundaries of the 'melting pot' states. It is niave of Huthmacher to claim that such varied groups as Italian, Irish and Jews all suffered the same hardships and therfore had the same reform goals.

The fact that Hutmacher basis his whole study of the wishes of the urban Working Class on only two states is enough in itself enough to justify labelling his conclusions flawed or incomplete.

The reason for the rise of Progressivism is just as varied as the profiles differnet historians have etched for the actual reforemers. The reason for this lies partly in the fact that the account of the ris of Progressivism used dictates exactly, who is responsible for the movement in general.

As, mentioned earlier, it is often claimed by those on the Middle Class side of the fence that the Progressives were motavated by a sense of togetherness with their fellow Americans. Generally speaking the majority of Progressive Middle Class reformers must have had at least some sense responsibility towards their less fortunate urban neighbours. Whether this was as humane and as simplistic as is often claimed is where the real issue lies. Claims by historians like Gerald Nash that "Patricians like Theodore Roosevelt were often strongly motavated by the belief in the Puritan ethic, which required them to do right by ther less fortunate fellow men", are hardly exactly convincing reasoning. That there were altermotives for Upper and Middle Class involvement in the reform movement hardly seems dubious but predictably even this is a divisive issue among students of the Progressive Era.

One of these altermotives  which is common among recent scholarly work on the Progressive Era is the so called Chandler-Mowry-Hoftstadter thesis of the 'Status Revolution'. This thoery asserts