The Progressive Movement was more successful because it "fit" with society in the 1890's. Society in the 1890's was the industial, urban, and corrupt government. It was the embodiment of the Progressive Movement because that it was it set out to change; corrupt government, working conditions ect. But the Populist movement was agrarian (farm like) and wasn't going on in the time period. Industrialisation was happening, and farming was pushed to the backburner. IT's often said that people only care about something when it happens to them, and that was the Progressive Movement. More people were factory workers than rural farmers, so they cared about the movement that affected them.
I hope this helps if you need more ... let me know
1.false
2. True hope it helps
I'm gonna choose the first prompt, I feel like it's a lot easier to come up with support.
During the early years of our independence as a country, prominent leaders George Washington and James Monroe both argued against becoming involved in foreign affairs. They felt that any international conflict brought with it the chance of war, and because America was so newly founded, we would be destroyed. Instead, they claimed that the country needed to concentrate on getting itself on its feet before they could begin to concern itself with other countries. By choosing to ignore international conflict around them, it eliminated any possible disputes with any other countries. Although this policy of isolationism worked for our founding fathers, following the same policy in today's world is not possible.
I gave you like ~150 words there to start you off, now I'll pass along things you can use as support. I'm not sure what grade you're in so I don't want to write something that sounds too elevated.
<span>The conflict in the Middle East would be vastly different.
</span>Israel would have to become more militant<span>, as they would lose the one counterweight that keeps other regional ambitions in check. Europe would fill the diplomatic void that US leaves behind. </span>France and UK would have to step up for the role of external arbitrator<span>. Saudis and other local oil exporter emirates would probably form alliance against non-oil producing Shiite majority nations. This</span><span> would result in higher energy price for the world.
</span>
<span>Japan and other Asian countries would have to form alliances to counter the Chinese territorial ambitions on their own
</span>In exchange for Japan not re-arming, the United States had guaranteed Japan’s safety. South Korea also relies heavily on the US to keep North Korea in its box. Choosing to isolationist would be a betrayal of our promises, and potentially force <span>Japan into changing its pacifist constitution. Some ASEAN countries may form military alliances, and Australia and New Zealand would likely face an even greater influx of immigrants from Asian countries.
</span>
US aid to Africa would cease<span>.
The continent of Africa is heavily reliant on the U.S. for support to combat epidemics and conflict. Many dictators and local strongmen would lose all aid money flowing into their coffers. Local conflicts may increase. China and Europe will fight for influence in the region. Nigeria and South Africa would also compete for continental influence.
</span>
Hope that helps! Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions.
The answer is tobacco and cotton
