The political campaign should focus on a long overdue U. S. economic miracle

Too often members of very wealthy families use politics as their personal playgrounds. Trump and Clinton reflect this pattern. Historically, this was the case with Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, the Kennedys, the Bushes and even some of the Founding Fathers. Most of them also dynasticized politics, too, as the Clintons are presently doing.

Almost all of them have acted far too parasitically to gain fame or more wealth while not sufficiently serving the national interest. Ego puffing was and is their game. They enlist the support of powerful lobbies who finance them and gain benefits in return, especially in foreign policy. Hence, most of our wars were started to satisfy the ulterior agenda of powerful lobbies which did not serve the national interest.
The end results of this giant parasitic pattern show up in foreign policy in the most gargantuan trade-off of guns and butter. Tens of trillions were spent on futile wars and associated military socialism. In its wake we have the horror of slumerica. Check our rusty infrastructure, the backward train system, the slum houses and growing numbers of trailer homes all across the U.S. It compares tragically with foreign advanced economies. The latter are mostly resource poor and crowded economies in sharp contrast to resource rich and spacious America. It is indeed America's tragedy that it has not done a lot with a lot of resources and space. Studies indicate that upward mobility in the U.S. is less than in most advanced foreign economies.
Add the fact that Americans are working more hours and longer into old age than any advanced economy while having the fewest vacations. Besides this, we use assets and debt assumption for consumption in the form of reverse mortgages, home equity loans and credit card debts. These are all patterns which continue our relative economic decline.

Neither of the candidates is focusing on a long overdue economic miracle which is sorely needed to solve our problems. Priority should be on domestic events and not on foreign affairs. If not, more discontent, more violence will degrade our quality of life. It will continue until more floods, more wild fires and more ecological degradation forces domestic priority on us.
Neither candidate inspires honesty and ethics. Instead, silly pep rallies and associated hoopla and a few constantly repeated objectives characterize their campaigns. Both fail to draw upon the wisdom of history to guide policy formulation. Even a cursory example from that vast source of facts would be very fruitful for both of them.

In 1917 President Wilson entered the first World War, and Leninism was born in Russia. Wilsonism competed with Leninism. Both practiced universal missionism. One promised to make the world safe for democracy and to end all wars. The other was trying to make it safe for communism to end all inequality. Wilsonism drew its inspiration from Manifest Destiny while Leninism drew its inspiration from Marx's Communist Manifesto. Both promised, in a most ahistorical fashion, utopia and a permanent resolution of most problems. Both put the priority on foreign policy which neglected domestic affairs. In their bids for global control, both Super Powers, in the long run, fought hot and cold wars which cost trillions and kept both from converting their vast space and resources into a superb living standard. Presently, both are still locked into quasi-wars in the Middle East which cause only more blowbacks for both.

Forgotten in the massive confrontation line between the U.S. and Russia were major historical similarities, which both would not admit. Both had a vast frontier, the Western Frontier in the U.S. and a gargantuan Eastern Frontier in Russia. Neither stopped expanding until they met in Alaska, an event which, fortunately, was settled through a mutually agreeable business deal, though without the approval of the native population.
Besides this, Russia had serfdom until the Crimean War ended it. The U.S. had slavery until the Civil War ended it. Both events were surrealistically similar in the sense that long lasting oppression was not stopped until the overwhelming event of a major war. Ironically, both also witnessed in 1881 the assassination of their top politician, President Garfield and Tsar Alexander.

After World War II, both locked horns and spent trillions during the Cold War on futile and economically self-immolative military expenditures and on a competitive race to the moon. Posturing with intercontinental ballistic missiles and spending many billions on reciprocal spying became the rage. Dozens of nuclear tests poisoned the globe. The debris of the nuclear arms race and nuclear power will cost both hundreds of billions more in a futile attempt to store it safely. Russia suffered the loss of 30 villages and had the horrible Chernobyl accident while the U.S. incurred the cost of the Three Mile Island and the Arco, Idaho accidents and the Hanford nuclear contamination, among others. The recent extremely costly nuclear mishap in New Mexico may prove the impossibility of safely storing nuclear residues.

No surprise that both Super Powers got stuck militarily for many years in Afghanistan and are continuing to violate routinely the sovereignty of foreign
nations.

Meanwhile, domestically both are being burdened by billionaires who are not just influencing decisively their respective internal politics but who also systematically have stolen and continue to steal many billions from their people.
Neither Trump nor Clinton focuses on these issues sufficiently. One uses the slogan "Make America Great Again" though historical realists could ask: does this mean a return to slavery or continuing to spend trillions on futile wars or causing more Great Depressions or Great Recessions or spreading more military-nuclear toxicities? A return to Nixon or LBJ? A far better slogan would be "Make America Great Immediately" and have for the first time in our economic history a nationwide economic miracle and not just local and regional ones which we tended to conflate as national ones.
The other candidate hopes to capitalize on being the first female President. That has a certain virtue, to be sure, and would emulate and catch up with what has happened already in many societies. But to cater to Wall Street primarily at the expense of the consumer and making substantial errors in foreign affairs and acquiring family wealth through dubious methods raises serious questions. Her slogan "Stronger Together" can only be achieved through an economic miracle.

Essentially, neither one draws from history, neither practices courageous honesty and exhibits ethical standards and aims at an economic miracle which would benefit everyone. Both sustain the historical pattern which guarantees a continuing relative decline of our living standard and quality of life