With a history of servitude to a chosen few in power back in the old world, the immigrant expected the government to take care of him, even through subscription. The immigrant was much more interested in politics taking care of his needs in the workforce or his way of life in the inner city, protection from the law, or for mere business licensing. And this rift was further split by someone who could pass in either society, the "boss". And most often, the "Irish boss". Being both immigrant and white America, he used his riches from graft to establish personal relationships with the immigrant population, as well as with private business leaders and public servants. This split almost totally severed communication between the reformer and the immigrant and kept society at odds with each.
The second essay, by Gerald Woods, takes the progressive movement to a more specific time and place. A tale of two cities in California during early twentieth century. The Californian progressive was usually born in the Midwest or California, a Republican, Protestant, in their thirties or forties, and relatively successful men. One major characteristic of these young progressives was their distaste for saloons, prostitution, gambling, horseracing, fighting, even dancing. Their reason for this was the destruction from within a society as the downfall of America. There were three cities initially talked about, but the essay concentrates on Los Angeles and San Francisco. San Francisco, being mostly Catholic and Irish, and did not agree at all with the progressive movement. The descendents of immigrants where things like wine and whiskey consumption was a way of life. They were opposed to any kind of restrictions on their personal life. This strong sentiment stopped all reform acts and legislature, and even during Prohibition, San Francisco remained a "wet" city throughout the entire time. Los Angeles, on the other hand, was a Protestant city, the "Capitol of Iowa" moved west.
