American greatness lay in its broad
demographic inclusion of all citizens in a field of egalitarian
economic opportunity. The opportunity wasn’t just nominal with a
few people rising into a higher social class. In fact many Americans
regarded the United States as classless for much of its history.
American greatness increased in expanding social and economic
inclusion to all the citizens rather than replacing one class with
another.
Mankind
shares a common destiny of birth, life and death. What one does in
relation to others during life determines if historians will declare
an individual, generation or work ‘great’. Any soul may work for
positive or negative while alive; for good or evil even though
ultimately faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole necessary
criteria for destiny after mortal life ends. The Lord said to forgive
seven times seventy when asked about it, for he exemplified nothing
besides positivity and progress rather than negativity and
destruction of human life and integrity of being. His record was one
of unadulterated good. Divine economics eschews the negative in
actualizing human destiny.
There are a few ready on the shelf
items and policies that could be used by any U.S. President that
would be regarded as great. Two are reform of capitalism such that it
is upgraded to serve the interests of the majority better, and
environmental economics for the nation that would create prosperity
restoring the wild ecosphere so far as possible and make classical
economics transition to an ecologically sustainable basis. Neither of
those greatness products have been used; each requires a surfeit of
intellect and specialized thought.
President Trump seeks to make America
great again following its economic and moral declines after the
Reagan administration and for much of the 21st
century. To accomplish that he would need to study and improve upon
the work of two Presidents that were leaders in breaking up exclusive
concentrating wealth and bringing all citizens back onto a level
field; Franklin Delano Roosevelt and LBJ. Far too many tools and
circumstances exist in the U.S.A. today including media that work to
concentrate wealth rather than moderate that to a reasonable level.
When 1% of the people ‘trol 90% of national wealth, 90% of the
people haven’t solid opportunity to be as productive or inventive s
they might otherwise. A society where where is greatly concentrated
and that is flooded with cheap illegal immigrant labor is not in any
way an egalitarian democracy. The U.S.A. today is a society
developing greatly corrupt morals, homosexuality followed by an
Oscar-winner for best picture with a synopsis that in effect
glorifies bestiality. Contemporary concentration of wealth of wealth
requires dumbing down, doping, and legislative duplicity of the
majority with great deceit and misdirection.
Concentrating wealth too far,
historically is antipathetic to a war on poverty. President Lyndon
Baines Johnson was the most famous American advocate for reducing
poverty of urban and rural regions through government intervention.
His War on Poverty was challenged to end the poverty that was a
legacy of the concentrated wealth distribution endemic to southern
history most notably during the slave. Johnson would need to change
the national infrastructure persisting in the south and in some forms
in other areas that was an established preferred networks insider
advantaged economic system that kept tired, poor huddled masses
yearning to be economically free clustering around concentrations of
wealth corporate owners exploiting them and perpetuating generations
of stagnant, oppressive poverty.
President Johnson needed to build a
new economic infrastructure that would end rural and urban economic
immobility. He had to bring better schools, roads, electricity and
economic opportunities that would allow a better distribution of the
products and profits of economic wealth to a majority rather than a
minority of the people. Johnson knew that keeping a majority or even
just tens of millions of citizens oppressed with poverty would
disadvantage the nation and was inconsistent with the principles of
the founders of the nation.
Even before Karl Marx made his
sociological analysis of England describing the concentration of
rural poor into cities working for increasingly powerful, advantaged
and exploiting rich in industry, the founders of the United States
had revolted against concentrated land wealth such as held by British
aristocrats and redistributed the land of people such as Lord Fairfax
of Virginia to ordinary Americans. The founders broke up concentrated
land wealth in an era when land was regarded by economists such as
Ricardo as the most valuable and finite capital that would inevitably
increase in value since land area was finite and population
increased.
It is interesting to consider what the
alternative British history would be if the British government had
conducted a war to end urban and rural poverty before Karl Mark
published Das Kapital. Maybe communism in the Soviet Union and China
wouldn’t have developed. The other way that communist
totalitarianism might have been avoided would have been if the U.S.
had not intervened in World War I. The the German aristocracy would
not have been deposed, Hitler and World War II would not have
occurred, and the Soviet Union would not have formed since Germany
would not have empowered Lenin and then disappeared itself as a
beaten power even though the Soviets did relinquish the Ukraine to
Germany in a deal of land for peace that Lenin cut at the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk.
A
war on poverty in the United States today would not require the
radical measure taken by the revolutionary founders of the nation.
Eliminating poverty would take nothing more than raising taxation on
1% of the people, reforming capital to a certain extent such that
over-concentration of wealth would be governed out and prevented with
progressive taxation on the rich reaching certain capital
concentration levels, and designing legislation that would assure
that none are oppressed and stuck poverty being unable to be hired to
a decent job, or not afford patents and/or college, or lacking basic
financial mobility resources for personal vital infrastructure.
L.B.J.’s war on poverty was a great idea of a great society with
very mixed results during his term of office. Yet one may view the
transition of the old post-war south that continued a kind of
incarceration lease-convict labor slavery right to 1930, and the slow
southern style of rural poverty, cotton picking and poor no minimum
wage structure that kept generations struggling in desperation the
quiet English way, with the new south of 1995 and believe that the
intention to create a new infrastructure was actually established and
continued unto the point that it actually paid off.
Unfortunately the Democrat Party has
entirely abandoned the war on poverty in the U.S.A., wealth is
concentrated increasingly and tens of millions live in stagnant and
even desperate economic relations. The Democrat party works for the
interests of illegal immigrants and regressive anti-second amendment
bans on guns, empowerment of rich women and homosexual hegemony to
pervert American youth.
