Has the Gilded Age Passed? and What is the Modern Progressivism?

     The Progressive Era, beginning in the Industrial Revolution to advance workers, womens, and African Americans rights, has continued to this day and age. After and during the Great Depression, the government saw that the way the economy had been run was the wrong way to have an economy. Therefore, the government created a more stable economy so that something like the Great Depression would not happen again. Franklin Roosevelt, by creating The New Deal philosophy and legislation, allowed the working class to have insurance and a government with more branches, which allowed protection and security of the rights for the people. People had better lives because of New Deal legislation. FDR was greatly influenced by his Progressive relative, Teddy Roosevelt. Moving forward to the 1950's and 60's, we have a rage of new music frowned down upon by parents and government officials alike. Elvis Presly, Jerry Lee Louis, Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, these are a few of these "rebel", wild wippersnappers, who were shunned by those old farts still listening to Mozart. Just look at how that music and those musicians could change the tide. You know, one of the best songs by Elvis is "In the Ghetto" which speaks to all those people living on the streets who don't have enough money to raise their child the way that child should be raised. I'm sure that could inspire someone to advocate and speak for those people who live on the streets. If you still can't see the connection between Elvis and Progress, at least cut me some slack and admit that these guys were the pioneers for later artists, and those guys spoke to a deeper purpose, right?
        Martin Luther King Jr. stood in front of a crowd 250,000 people on August 28th, 1963, proclaiming he had a dream, that one day he wished his children's children could hold hands with a white man, as friends. If the March On Washington is not a Progressive moment, I clearly do not understand the meaning of Progressivism. The Supreme Court is also another fine example of Progressivism. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Darby Lumber, these are all examples of the Supreme Court taking Progressivist stances on major issues. Don't get me wrong, the Supreme Court has had a crap ton of cases that they have just been downright wrong about, such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Furguson, and The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, which wrote out the Due Process clause, among other things. Yet again, I stress that their have been a fair number of cases that have done some good and have been used for social progress, that is, after all, what the Warren Court revolved around. Since Rehnquist's tenure, however, the court has taken a blind eye to the progress of the nation.
           The year is 1838, the Indians start a journey which only end in death and sadness. This journey, spurred on by Andrew Jackson, is called the Trail of Tears. To me, this event is equal to that of the Nazi Camps where Jewish people were held during WWII. Now you may ask, how is this Progressivism, and why are we talking about something that happened before Industrialization? My answer lies 140 years in the future, where Native Americans protested for equal rights on Capitol Hill. On the surge of the 1960's,    the Native Americans fought for their rights. One of the greatest things about Progressivism is the ability to find some fact or statistic that helps your cause that swells emotion in the listener and encourages them to support their cause. For the Native Americans, it was the broken promise that the Native Americans should have land in America, "As long as the grass grows or water runs." 
           In this current day and age, the Occupy movement is the Progressive movement. Nobody knows what they want, besides to spread the money around, and that is a very large issue, pertaining directly to the issues of Industrialization. But despite this, we have a lot of reforms to consider. How can we, as a nation, allow our troops to laugh at naked Afghan prisoners? Are the events of the Arab Spring and Libya a calm, sane way to achieve social progress, or is it a way to just move a step closer to anarchy? A theme I'm discussing nowadays is that raising public outrage and concern became the "fourth branch" of government. The Egyptians, the Libyans, they all heard the news, they all wanted change. They were the Muckrackers. They brought the truth to light the began to think that perhaps the way the government was running was not right. The Arab Spring began as a small protest. It got larger and larger as more voices joined, and began to reveal the truth about their government. How can the Supreme Court say it is the guardian of the Constitution, the document which tells us how our government is run, the government, which dictates the rules which we live by, and condemn people who insurrect, and yet still deny Troy Davis his First Amendment rights to speak, his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and his right to an attorney, and still put that man to death for the sake of remaining neutral in State affairs? If we think about it, this is a major act of injustice, and, when pulling from a great thinker and his themes for Progressivism, seem to directly link to this instance in the news. The theme is, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, is a perfect example of what this represents. Troy Davis was given a great injustice by the Supreme Court. If all individuals are rooted together, what makes it wrong to just blow off another criminal who pleads innocent? If we allow one death, it opens up the gateway for more deaths. We are a nation strongly rooted in the fact we are fair, this act tells the world we are not fair. What we do in America effects the world, and vice-versa, similar to how the Progressivists fought for their cause, and it effected how the future Progressive leaders fought their causes. My final point, are we moving towards a better social nation when a Congresswoman is shot down for no good reason? Yes, Gabriel Giffords has made a remarkable recovery, but the act in itself is an atrocity and a step back from social progress. That is a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers. Most of the things I just wrote I believe are atrocities. To laugh at Afghans gives an image of what America is to foreigners, and is not the way to form a more perfect union, of that, I am sure. On Troy Davis, I am in uproar. Even if Davis was guilty, he should have been given an appeal, although I believe he was innocent. 
          The Gilded Age will never end. Their will be always something to fight for, and someone always their to oppose it. Progressivism has it's swells in voice and popularity. Though many years may pass before the issue is fully recognized appropriately, we know that the fight goes on, the cause endures, and the dream will never die.