America at 250.

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Stephen Kotkin America at 250 May 2026

If you want to make America Great Again...then you have to restore The Great Society

 

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

The link between economic growth and progress was broken, and must be restored!

What Were LBJ's "Great Society" Programs?

How did he/we do it?  We had the greatest period of peacetime economic growth -- the 1960s -- in our history.  And it was broadbased, with the narrowest gap in income and wealth inequality.

	Real GDP	Real GDP          per Capita
1790 to 1810	4.96%	1.81%
1790 to 2024	3.77%	1.81%
1790 to 2000	3.96%	1.86%
1866 to 1896	3.96%	1.53%
1947 to 2024	3.09%	1.94%
1947 to 2000	3.52%	2.20%
1947 to 1973	3.87%	2.33%
1958 to 1973	4.11%	2.74%
1960s	4.53%	3.13%
1970 to 1980	2.92%	1.84%
1982 to 1989	3.62%	2.68%
1992 to 2000	3.84%	2.60%
2001 to 2024	2.13%	1.34%
2002 to 2024 Just the positive years, not including 2001, 2009, and 2020	2.76%	2.01%

Citation: Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?" MeasuringWorth, 2025.  Downloaded May 22nd 2025.  My calculations.

If you just took the positive years of economic growth between 2001 to the present, leaving out the recessions, it would be twenty-five years of economic growth at least 1% below the historic average of our growth since 1790 and almost that bad since the post-World War II days of 1947 to 2000 – 2.8% versus 3.8% or 3.5% -- and that’s just counting the good years of the last 25 years, while leaving in all the panics of the 19^th Century and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

What if we had grown by just the average – an additional 1% per year more than we did over the last 25 years – 3.5% per year?^[1]  Where would we be today?  Our GDP today is around $30 trillion.  In 2001 our GDP was around $10.5 trillion.  Today in 2025 it would be either $40 trillion or well over $50 trillion depending on your starting point of 1790 or 1947, a $10 to $20 trillion difference.

What would be the difference in revenues collected?  Well the federal  government collects about 17% of the GDP.  So for each additional $10 trillion that would be $1.7 trillion ($3.4 trillion with a $50 trillion GDP economy); and that’s each year, and that’s without making the federal government any more efficient or changing anything, just doing what it has normally done.  It would be an additional $800 billion in revenues for all of the states for each additional $10 trillion added to the GDP (that would be $1.6 trillion with a $50 trillion GDP economy).

So think about that?  We currently have a $30 trillion economy and the President and Congress are trying to cut $1.5 trillion in programs, programs that are not waste, but help people.  This rationale would be obliviated if we just had normal/average economic growth over the last twenty-five years.  And I am just talking about doing what we did before, nothing exceptional; just being average.  And the $1.7 trillion additional revenues for each additional $10 trillion of GDP production is only the federal government’s portion.  That additional ten trillion dollars is coming from our private sector, our businesses, their activity.  That’s jobs, the additional jobs that we don’t have today.  That’s the additional consumer spending that we would be generating.  That’s the additional services our private sector would be providing.  

Now do you get it?

 

¹  The formula for compounded annual growth rate of change is used:

^{CAGR = ((Ending Value / Beginning Value)^(1 / Number of Years)) - 1} 

The GDP dollar values are for nominal GDP (e.g. $30 trillion) not the Real GDP which factors out inflation.  But the growth rates I cite (e.g. 3.5%) are the growth rates for the Real GDP.  For the CAGR formula I use the nominal GDP for the Ending Value and the Beginning Value.  These Nominal GDP growth rates are:

1790 to 1810      7.06% 1790 to 2024      5.51% 1790 to 2000      5.62% 1866 to 1896      1.70% 1947 to 2024      6.47% 1947 to 2000      7.35% 1947 to 1973      7.09% 1958 to 1973      7.15%    1960s                6.93% 1970 to 1980      9.86% 1982 to 1989      7.33% 1992 to 2000      5.83% 2001 to 2024      4.49% 2002 to 2024      5.70%  Just the positive   years not including 2001, 2009, and 2020

So the difference in the rates of growth, whether comparing them by nominal values (not adjusted for inflation) or Real GDP (adjusted for inflation), the difference is still 1%.  And you can note that the difference in Nominal GDP would be greater when the excellent growth of the 1960s is used for comparison, or the period from 1947 to 2000 – both being around 7%, and therefore a difference of 2.5% from the present period of 2001 to 2025.

 

I know this may sound mixed up for most folks.  But I did this because these are the ways you read these numbers in the news.  When they say the economy today is a $30 trillion economy they are giving you the Nominal GDP value, and not the Real GDP value of $23.5 trillion.  And when they say the economy has grown at a 3% pace, they are giving you the rate of growth of the Real GDP, in order to factor out inflationary growth.  I hope that clears it up for you.  That’s economists for today.

 

 

 

The Grotesque World of President Trump

The Grotesque World of President Trump

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

May 30th 2020, Revenge of the Digital Luddites

May 30^th 2020, Revenge of the Digital Luddites

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Last night while watching the rioting – not to be confused with the peaceful protests earlier in the day about the police abuse of minorities in the George Floyd murder case – I was awakened to one of the street interviews by a reporter from my local area of Los Angeles.  Earlier in the evening reporters had interviewed some of the protestors, not rioters, one a young college educated minority who talked about the inequities of social and racial justice in our society, trying to explain why this rioting, and the looting and destruction of stores was happening.  In another separate interview the reporter had a husband-wife business owner team on mike asking if their business was destroyed as the reporter pointed out the destroyed looted buildings in the neighborhood.  “No” they said, “We are a service company.  We do not sell merchandise, so there is nothing to steal or anything that they [the looters] would want, they skipped us.”  I had to think about that; it struck me.

I am well into being a septuagenarian now, so I am well aware of riots from previous decades where the issues were similar to today; and, being a history major, some that preceded my existence.  The last major riot we had in Los Angeles was in 1992 related to the verdict acquitting police officers in the beating of Rodney King for a high-speed chase;  and that involved the breaking of windows, looting stores, and setting fires.  Breaking windows, interesting analogy?

Breaking Windows in Los Angeles – 2020?

1992?, that was right when Windows 3.1 came out, the first really popular version of a multimedia, graphical user interface program that replaced DOS-based software, and made navigating around the early Internet (prior to web-based search engines) much easier with a browser that could easily take you to a specific web site or bulletin board – this is all prior to Google and the World Wide Web.  1992?, that was right after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.  1992?, that was right before globalization would get an impetus from the collapse of communism and really start to take off for linking the world in an economic system that would spread resources more efficiently and productively for the benefit of humankind.  Right???

Well it was during that riot in 1992 where stores were looted and burned.  This time what I noticed was the looting in particular, and the setting fire to, seemed to be more organized on the part of the rioters –   several vehicles would drive up a boulevard in a shopping district, several people would get out dressed in dark clothes and with hoods and masks, go about breaking windows and doors to gain entry, and loot the place and come out with merchandise that was loaded in the vehicles and drive away, and eventually wind up in another shopping district to repeat the scene all over again.  But I wondered, what were they gaining of value to lash out at society this time?  Merchandise/goods?  We’re in a digital economy today.  A service economy today.  An information economy where knowledge-based work is performed and the people who do that work today are by and large handsomely rewarded.  What damage is being done to this society today with this riotous behavior, a society that is still mired in inequities and social and racial injustice?  Is this just a modern day version of the rage and anger of Luddites striking out futilely against inevitable societal changes that perpetuate past grievances and wrongs?

Luddites in England during the industrialization of early 19^th Century

The rioters, and the protestors that defend this defiance, striking out against the material possessions of a modernizing wealthy society are misdirected, because in the intervening time since the Rodney King Riots and 1992, the wealth of a modern society has transmuted into an information age and knowledge-based society where value manifests itself less visibly.  The threat to a democratic society is not in the maldistribution of material possessions but in the inequality of opportunity when a knowledge-based society serves the interests of an oligarchic, aristocratic meritocracy.  These modern day Luddites are digitally duped, deceived, and lost their focus on a remedy, which needs redirection toward participation in our democratic process as well as its institutions, and not breaking windows to get in.

There were two videos last week that highlighted the inequality and social-racial injustice in our society.  What happened to George Floyd at the hands (knee) of the police was just one example.  The other was just as telling although less horrific; bird watcher Christian Cooper, a gentle man who politely asked a young lady walking her dog off leash to tether the dog as posted on signs in that area of Central Park reserved for birders, whereupon the women got on her phone and called police to say she was in danger, and not stopping there but to add that she was being threatened by an African-American.  If there is a problem of White Supremacy in this country, it sure played out more subtly with this example, which is more than just an illustration of class entitlement or poor momentary judgment.

In addition to our digital divide in this country, we also have a political divide.  And that political divide is stoked by a president who uses derision as a strategic weapon to divide and conquer in a nation where all other presidents prior to him used their abilities to broaden their political coalition.  President Trump has used rhetoric, and described situations like the protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, and a literal descent from the escalator ride in Trump Tower to a figurative descent into nativism and White Supremacy when he announced his run for the presidency that day; this to govern a country which is becoming a majority-minority nation.

How did such a person get to be the leader of the Free World I will leave to others to analyze.  His inadequacies as a national leader are very apparent, especially as we deal with an international pandemic with  national proportions which strikes at people of color members of our nation disproportionately to their representation.  He is unable to provide leadership to a great nation because of a strategy that only appeals to half of the nation; so that when an issue like the pandemic requires a unified response, he has neutered himself in trying to rally all the troops. 

President Trump has proven inept at managing our vast bureaucracy; but, he has managed to overcome this by being legitimized by a Right Wing faction out to serve their own political agenda by working with and enabling this person with so many leadership deficiencies while undermining our professional civil service and the one and only institutional business mentioned in the Constitution to protect our liberties, the media, which he has repeatedly called “the enemy” and the Right Wing faction has embraced the criticism with references to the “Deep State”, previously  known as our democratic institutions.

I do not know what President Trump’s personal motivation was for seeking the presidency, a role of leadership for the Free World that has been used to advance democratic values.  No society is perfect, but the one example that the American system of democracy has over others, is that we have been malleable to change, right from our founding, so that whatever the issues are that plague our society, like racism, can be institutionally addressed and self-corrected.  However, only so much can be done with the passing of laws; to change what is in the hearts and minds of people will require something not found in any historical document or proclamation or utterance from any official. 

If America is to advance the cause of liberty and democracy to itself as well as other nations and fulfill the quest of the founding fathers as symbolically represented by Lady Liberty in the New York harbor, given to us by the French as a beacon for others, that used to greet newly arriving immigrants and still manages to be an inspiration for visitors as well as foreigners in their own land, it must find a way to be inclusive in its social fabric.

Tiananmen Square Protests in China – 1989

The American Experience versus Nationalism

The American Experience versus Nationalism:

A reply to Rich Lowry and Liah Greenfeld 

Economics (and Politics this time) Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Rich Lowry and Liah Green feld had a discussion on American Nationalism for the NPR program 'On Point'.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/11/05/rich-lowry-the-case-for-nationalism


This is my reply:

This discussion by Rich Lowry and Liah Greenfeld is disheartening; neither gets to the core component in explaining what has driven human development, DEMOCRACY, simply defined as the ability of people to govern themselves.  Democracy has not been sustained by nationalism, or even American Nationalism; it is the American Experience that has sustained the democratic urge of people, both in this nation as well as around the world.  But these are not American values, in the sense that only Americans can promote them, these are universal values that anyone can aspire to.

So let’s review the historical record to set the argument.  The largest geographic empire on Earth was the Mongol Empire (of many nations) of Genghis Khan/Kublai Khan; but the one that had the greatest influence on us [so far] is the Roman Empire (also of many nations) because it was that system that emphasized universals that we still acknowledge today and has been the underpinnings of the Western Culture which has predominated over other cultures.  When the Roman Empire collapsed those universals were carried in the institution of the Catholic Church.  When the Catholic Church emerged from the Middle Ages with a fractured Europe which stopped the advance of the Islamic influence and Mongol Empire, was faced with the Protestant Reformation following the Renaissance, and latter developments in the Enlightenment, Age of Reason, Return to Nature; this thread in history can be characterized as the advance of humanism to the very present.  However, there is a distinct marker in this advance of humanism, DEMOCRACY!

Why does the advance of humanism from the Renaissance stall after several generations and is followed by short bursts of energy followed again by more repression over several more generations?  It is because – as noted by Kenneth Clark in his ‘Civilization’ series in the late 1960s – there was no weight to this movement because the benefits only served a select few in society.  It will take the impulse toward democratic governance to sustain the benefits that come from the humanistic movement.

It is the American Revolution which stands out in this advance of humanism.  For people to succeed in governing themselves there must be a system of governance that promotes the general welfare and must have some sense of fairness that all who are subject to that governance are willing participants in the system.  We must recall however that the American Revolution was immediately followed by the French Revolution in Europe that was also promoting democratic rule.  But the influence of the French Revolution has had difficulty in promoting democratic values throughout the 19^th Century and even well into the 20^th Century; unlike the influence of the American Revolution which has met challenges like Manifest Destiny, the American Civil War, Industrialization, the Great Depression, World War II somewhat successfully.  Why the American Revolution and not the French Revolution in Europe for advancing the case for democracy?

The value system embedded in the American Revolution is an inclusive one; but, it did not start out that way, and you can even say we have been dealing with this inclusiveness or the lack of it ever since.  Who gets included; who gets left out?  While the American Way has not had the difficulty in succeeding like the French Revolution in Europe, the American Experience has been characterized by a continual re-examination of its values through the various generations with a renewal of liberty as articulated by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.

At the core of our American Experience are:

(1)           the conflicting values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, especially individual liberty and equality as played out in the commons;

(2)           the fragmented political structure of our federal system (national government, state, and local and regional government bodies) with representative government characterized by checks and balances throughout that structure;

(3)           an economic system of free enterprise that promotes and rewards individual initiative and creativeness in providing the wants and needs in a society, and can concentrate economic power with its resultant influence in the political sphere;  

(4)           and a process of governing that includes civic engagement of the people which constantly requires the building and shifting of coalitions to interface with that representative governing structure;

(5)           all to coalesce with the Will of the People somehow being expressed so that progress can thrive. 

In short, unlike the European view of democracy that comes from the influence and spread of the French Revolution, that looks at democracy by holding people to high ideals, the American Experience is a dynamic system not a static system that is constantly re-evaluating our values to fit contemporary circumstances so that what results are practical solutions although they may be imperfect and subject to change at another time.  Our bedrock foundation is in the process, not some ideal view of society; life is in the living, in the journey; the process of life is about change.  Our American Way is about adapting to change.

Furthermore, we came late to realize that to preserve our democratic values they must be the basis of our national security strategy as we engage the rest of the world.  This is not globalism; this is pursuing our self-interest, an enlightened self-interest that we spread internationally by way of alliances with like-minded allies.  We engage the rest of the world not because we think we are better than others but because our economic system tells us that promoting the general welfare involves us in engaging the rest of the world in the allocation of resources, scarce resources, in the most efficient and productive manner to secure the very best for all who participate in this sort of behavior.

Following the 1960s we have failed to promote higher rates of economic growth; higher rates of economic growth gave us the vitality our nation needs to address new issues of social justice, that greater vitality in our economic sector gives us greater vitality in our political sphere to address issues that should be part of our public policy agenda. Instead we have settled in for maintaining the status quo with growth, but much lower rates of growth and therefore less vitality in our economy and our society.  We emerged from World War II by putting ourselves on the world stage for the first time as the world leader.  That world back then, and still today, needed [still needs] democratic leadership to promote peace and economic betterment.  To make change we need to invigorate vitality, economically and politically.  Our lower rates of economic growth are not enough to overcome the built-in inertia of the status quo to make the necessary changes for remaking the world order into a more peaceful and democratic way of living.  Our national self-interest is vested in our ability to make those changes.

The study of history is influenced by the social movements that affect people at any particular time.  So in our history, the role of the individual in a society and the role of government in that society, the expansion of the American nation westward and the conflict of cultures between a native inhabited people and new settlers, slavery and civil rights struggle, the industrialization of the American economy from a rural/agrarian economy along with labor/management issues in a corporate setting, immigration, the participation of women in society to include politics, are all topics , among others, that get discussed and can be influenced by the particular generation that deals with these issues.  The American experience is a unique experience in the historical context.  The fundamental principle of our nation’s founding was that people could govern themselves.  We are not the oldest democracy; and, we are not the only republic that was ever created.  But our founders did create a system for governing with the consent of the governed while respecting dissenting opinions – a constitutional, democratic, republican form of government.

An understanding of American history does not come naturally.  It takes effort.  Our diversity can pull us apart.  We have had a historical common thread as one nation, with its faults, but never-the-less with progress shown.  For the most part, the American people through history have not been won over by an idealistic notion of existence.  Americans, for the most part, have been a practical people who have fumbled their way forward, sometimes making mistakes, but ever trying to right the way and do a practical justice for their forebearers and progeny.

Let's have that political fight that Bannon wants: within each political party

Let's have that political fight that Bannon wants:

within each political party

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Steve Bannon wants Republicans to have a fight.  
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/29/steve-bannons-breitbart-going-war-against-gop-incumbents/717724001/

Matt Schlapp, American Conservative Union, says Republicans need to have that fight over direction of Republican Party.  Yes, and Liberals and Old Style Democrats (like myself) need to have that fight: the role of Government in Society and the role of America in the World.

Role of America in the World -- We just had a Vietnam series on PBS, showing a mis-reading by Greatest Generation of conflict of ideology vs dis-establishing colonial empires after WWII. But, it is still America's role in World to set an example and help people toward self-government (a democratic process) and peaceful resolution of conflicts. That secures the blessings of liberty.

When you hear someone, of the political Left or Right, talk about America's role in the World using pejorative terms like 'nation-building' or 'policeman of the world', put these into the greater context of the previous paragraph to determine what interests are being served.  In a less than perfect world, what is the ultimate outcome trying to be achieved?  And can less than optimum solutions, while not perfect, put us in the right direction and keep us on the right side of an issue?

Role of Government in Society -- use 1960s as example, it is the best economic performing period in American history with nothing close to it (within 40% of economic growth of this 10 year period):  so, get Federal Government spending and revenues within 15% to 17% of GDP (has been over 20% since 2008) and real GDP (inflation adjusted ) sustained broad-based economic growth up to 3% to 4% (has been no better than 2% since 2001).  Get the national (public held) debt-to-GDP down to 40% (currently over 100%). With that our society can afford to have a social-welfare function of Government and support programs like Social Security and Healthcare for all.  And it can also support an activist international function (both economic and diplomatic) supplemented with strong military involvement.

Simply speaking about the nation's debt without taking into account the level of debt in relation to the overall economy or the rate of growth of the debt in relation to the rate of growth of the economy becomes a meaningless discussion unless its purpose is to stir up political pointers.  The same can be said for proposing new spending programs, however beneficial, without taking into consideration what they will do with the performance of the overall economy.  And the same can be said with cutting taxes and what effect that will have on revenues.

A nation's priorities are determined by people and their leaders as to what role they want to play in the quest for human progress.  America has always looked upon itself, since very early in our history, as a leader in that quest.

PRODUCTIVITY RATES IN THE U.S. from 1820 to Present

GROWTH/PRODUCTIVITY RATES IN THE U.S.

 from 1820 to Present

Economics Without The B.S.**: 

[**  Double entendre intended.]

THE BIG QUESTION:  (I know why the 1940s are #1.)  Why are the 1960s head and shoulders above every other decade in American history?  About 40% more productive than the 1980s and about 70% more productive than the 1990s.  And it is not due to post-WWII factors, the Vietnam War build-up, or women entering the workforce in mass.

GROWTH/PRODUCTIVITY RATES IN THE U.S. from 1820 to Present

[Real GDP per capita, in 2009 $’s; factors out the effects of inflation and population growth.

1.  1940s – 40%                      [Hint:]*  The Generations
2.  1960s – 35%                                   Greatest Generation
3.  1870s – 28%                                   Silent Generation
4.  1980s – 25%                                   Baby Boomers
5.  1970s – 25%                                   Generation X
6.  1920s – 24%                                   Millennials
7.  1850s – 24%
8.  1880s – 23%
9.  1990s – 21%
10. 1950s – 19%
11. 1910s – 14%
12. 1840s – 15%
13. 1930s – 13%
14. 1830s – 9.7%
15. 1890s – 9.0%
16. 1820s – 8.1%
17. 1860s – 7.6% 
18.  2000s – 5.5%
19. 1900s – 5.0%
20. 2010s – 4.8%      (for 5 years) 

*  And if you need another hint, go back to YouTube and pull up President Kennedy in Houston, Texas in 1962 explaining why we are going to the Moon.

TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY

Economics Without The B.S.**:  Teaching American History

[**  Double entendre intended.]

TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY

         We study history, as one branch of knowledge, to understand our place in the universe.  The human animal is the one animal that has a cultural evolution as well as a biological evolution.  We can shape and change that cultural evolution.  We are the one animal that can change its environment and move about anywhere on Earth and beyond.  The study of history is the link between the Past, the Present, and the Future – the link between knowledge and progress.  Our progress as a species is linked to our quest for knowledge; and, technological advance and an understanding of our past is the key to the pace of that quest.

          As one branch of knowledge, history involves inductive as well as deductive reasoning.  But unlike the sciences, which rely on empirical evidence and are objective in their analysis and conclusions, historical analysis is subjective but never-the-less still relies on making a rational argument.  The study of history is influenced by the social movements that affect people at any particular time.  So in our history, the role of the individual in a society and the role of government in that society, the expansion of the American nation westward and the conflict of cultures between a native inhabited people and new settlers, slavery and civil rights struggle, the industrialization of the American economy from a rural/agrarian economy along with labor/management issues in a corporate setting, immigration, the participation of women in society to include politics, are all topics , among others, that get discussed and can be influenced by the particular generation that deals with these issues.

          The American experience is a unique experience in the historical context.  The fundamental principle of our nation’s founding was that people could govern themselves.  We are not the oldest democracy; and, we are not the only republic that was ever created.  But our founders did create a system for governing with the consent of the governed while respecting dissenting opinions – a constitutional, democratic, republican form of government.

          Unlike other societies in history, institutionally and culturally we are not a status quo nation.  Institutionally we have a federal system of government that not only divides power among the branches of government but also between the federal government and state and local governments.  That division of power may cause competitiveness in our political system; but, it means that in order for something to get accomplished cooperation rules and the game plan is to build viable coalitions.  Those political leaders that can forge a consensus are successful in our political system.

          In addition to the institutional framework of our governing system there is also “We the People”.  While we are a representative democracy and not a direct democracy we do have a civic engagement of the governed.  Culturally we have always been a diverse nation, right from our beginning.  Very quickly in our history we spanned the continent to become a contiguous continental nation.  We have always had a mixture of people in our nation, non-English speakers and not of a European origin.  We are probably the only nation in history that is not defined by an ethnic or religious makeup but instead by a loose governing concept. 

      In our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will find a variety of values stated: liberty, equality, promoting the general welfare, life and the pursuit of Happiness.  They are neither defined, delineated, nor ranked in order.  They can at times conflict with one another.  Sometimes we lean one way during a conflict; and, sometimes we lean the other way.  We are constantly re-examining our values.  During Andrew Jackson’s Presidency was the first deviation from the founding fathers,  giving a Western/frontiersman interpretation to liberty, rugged individualism mixed with an egalitarian spirit, and the ‘Common Man’ mythology that departed from the Jeffersonian concept of an educated, almost an elite, citizen.  Each generation that comes along does this, a re-evalution of our traditional values in a contemporary setting.  Even newly arrived immigrants eventually figure this out.  That is what makes us unique and has contributed to our greatness.

          The dynamism in our culture that comes from our makeup and institutional framework feeds our innovative spirit that drives our economy and well-being.  The competitiveness in our fragmented system allows individual initiative to function in an institutional setting.  The advancement of creative enterprise depends on the ability to convince others and gain cooperation.  For change to take effect and bring progress, the old order will likely be upset.  The American experience has linked progress with the individualistic enterprise found in a capitalistic economic system and the liberty and civic engagement of a democratic political system.

          An understanding of American history does not come naturally.  It takes effort.  Our diversity can pull us apart.  We have had a historical common thread as one nation, with its faults, but never-the-less with progress shown.  For the most part, the American people through history have not been won over by an idealistic notion of existence.  The collectivist society of New Harmony couldn’t make it for even twenty years.  And the fate of an idealistic New Liberty on the style of the Cato Institute or Koch Brothers would likely have no better an outcome.  Instead, Americans, for the most part, have been a practical people who have fumbled their way forward, sometimes making mistakes, but ever trying to right the way and do a practical justice for their forebearers and progeny.  If a teacher fails to drag (or is lead a better word) students, either children or adult learners, through this process of inquiry, they are failing in a good civics lesson; and, we are teaching ideology and not history.

          Hopefully, in studying the Past, we will come to understand ourselves better and where we are at Present.  The Past is not always Prologue.  As human animals we can learn from our Past and master our Present rather than be trapped by our Past.  We are capable of change.

                 The living shall not be in peace,

                         When the Past is not at rest.

                 The Present holds the Future's lease,

                         When We give not our best