presents the United States in 1950. A self sufficient republic that fed on cheap, nourishing food, breathed clean air, drank good water, manufactured all it needed, wore it's own garments of wool, cotton and leather, educated its young and offered them jobs, fairly priced housing, safe streets, newspapers, and an optimistic future. Families ate together three times a day, mom baked apple pies, dad worked around the house, the children played with neighbourhood friends, there were days at the beach, picnics, barbecues, horseshoes and church on Sundays. Ours was never an ideal society, but it was pleasant and had promise. What happened to this nation? offers some surprising, virtually ignored insights.By the time the Greeks invented political science 2500 years ago, they understood that every government has a conservative faction that preserves those aspects of government that have proven themselves useful and a faction that advocates for change that brings forward ideas to improve what is in place. The work of these two forces together is meant to allow a government to adapt and change over time. When these factions can no longer work together, revolution results. A period of bloodshed and hardship brings about a strong unifying government which lasts until two new parties come into being. In the early 20 century greed and misguided tax law diverted vast pools of money from the tax revenues of the republic and placed it in the hands of uncontrolled foundations to the certain benefit of the few with chimeric visions of benefits for the many. This money, tax revenue intended to benefit the people of the republic, was diverted from the coffers or the republic to foundations. The foundations were soon taken over by socialist, social science academics 'managers' and used their monies to advocate for social change to the detriment of the republic. Many 'managers' were well motivated but their untested theories supported by the vast resources of the foundations destroyed the balance between conservation and change. History has shown that the theories of the New Dealers were no more successful than Russian Communism. Many utopians over the centuries have had dreams of improving mans' lot - with foundation money and a century of spending it, these élites have brought the West to the World Economic Forum. An organization promoting theories very similar to Marxist Leninism. Nobody has ever established what makes for a good leader: aristocrat, philosopher, jurist, preacher, general, orator . . .. All have all been tried with some joy and some sorrow. For the first time in history we are about to experiment with the possession of money as the criterion of the good leader. The possession of money is not the possession of intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, justice, or morals. Experience shows it to lead to overbearing hubris and envy. Why it is theorized that wealth from inheritance, luck, industry or fraud might make for good leaders is what the world is about to witness. The irony may be that the assets of the foundations will pay off the national debt when once again we find a stable government.