“The president shapes the public character of the nation”
I totally disagree.
That disagreement begins with a clear understanding of the unique nation the U.S, is.
First, we are not a unitary state, with “provinces” (states in the U.S. context) that are just lower appendages of the government in Washington D.C. The sovereignty of the individual U.S. states is real regardless of the fact that certain legal jurisdictions fall only under the sovereignty of the government in Washington D.C. We are a nation of states not a unitary state.
Second, we are first and foremost a nation of people above all government at all levels of the U.S. We may elect government leaders and representatives, but when they speak they speak for their respective government office, representing that office alone, not collectively “the people”. And, the only real “nation” of the United States of America is it’s people, united, or divided, and not any one elected official.
The true “public character” of this nation, the United States, is within its people. We are the authors and power holders above the government, to whom its officers speak for the office they are given, and themselves.
We most certainly do not think presidents or anyone else represent our character when we stand diametrically opposed to the policies those individuals promote.
I never thought Bill Clinton or Mister Obama represented the “public character” of the United States, and just because I like many things President Trump is doing that he too represents the “public character” of “the nation”.
Presidents are not our kings. They are our top servants.
Our “public character” is as diverse as is our morals, values and opinions. It can never in any one individual, leader be bottled as “the public character”.
We have two sets of laws one for the peon and one set for the elites. Why is Hillary still walking around? I think your post is a joke right? an attempt at comedy?.