And I suppose I took some sense of comfort that as bad as it was for Jurgis,our society had improved.. The Jungle prompted a reluctant Teddy Roosevelt, no fan of Sinclair, to introduce food safety reglutation, which led to the creation of the Food and Drug administration. TR understood that industry and capitalism left uncheck resulted in societal woes, and hence the Progressive Era ensued. Labor law, health codes, market regulations were created as a counterweight to rampant industry and capitalism. America, as it so often does installed a system of checks and balances The 20 years leading up to this point relied on society itself to solve these problems, but that experiment failed. And while there are similarities between the turn of 20th century and the first decade of this century,I always felt that as bad as things are now, at least they are not as bad as they were then.
We must be better than a time that evokes images food lines, The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire¸ Robber Barons and sawdust flavored sausages. A time when poor Jurgis fell victim to predatory lending in the hope of owning a home, and ended up being swindled of his meager savings in a dilapidated property that he had no hopes of paying off. (Okay, that similarity is just plain scary). But that was a time when people were dying of food contaminated with Turburculosis. Though now that I think of it, didn't the Senate just pass a bill to combat ecoli in food. (That might be a bad example as well.) But surely the American experience now cannot be on par with what it was 100 years ago. We've evolved, progressed...right?
Most recent figures available indicate that in the US, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the wealth. There are no accurate figures of wealth disparity from 1906 (or at least none that I could find). So Mr. Egan might be right on wealth. What alarms me if that if I picked up The Jungle it might read as a bluepirnt to these times and not the comforting cautionar tale. I am sadly resigned to think that we are closer to the maladies of 1906 than we ever have been in the last 100 years. It is clear that many of the accomplishments of the Progressive Era (Labor Unions, Financial Reform, Housing, and political reform) have been gradually eroded. Some of this is the result of corruption and lack of hubris on behalf of the Progressive champions themselves. Others were concerted efforts by moneyed interest and Capitol Hill (just within in the last 20 years).- Reminds me of the saying “Don’t take fence down, unless you know why it was put up in the first place.” "Those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind to. At least in that scenario you could claim, "we'll they were ignorant of history." What do we do then, if people have learned from history, but repeat the doom anyway? That just seem evil.
The Progressive Era was a reaction to avarice left unchecked. New immigrants from Italy, Poland, Germany and Ireland weren't afforded basic human dignities. While some were able to perserve and find the American dream. Many did not. Now the 3rd and 4th generations of those immigrants are seeing some of the same conditions (and oddly now directing anger at new immigrants trying to find the American dream). Progressivism provide a valve release to the growing class tension between the labor class and the entitled class. What are we going to do to address that tension now? Teddy Roosevelt is not to be found. I could god around saying "Dee-light-ful", but that might not be enough.
In the spirit of "only Nixon could go to China", I believe that anyone but a liberal or democrat could address these woes. Perhaps New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg can walk softly and carry a big stick. But something's gotta give, or else Karl Marx is going to become trendy again.
We should not take Tim Egan’s aside without sober reflection. If disparities are greater today than in the time of Jurgis, JD Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc…..that's a call to action.