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.