So the previous President’s apology tour was inappropriate and meaningless. I no longer need to feel ashamed of his behavior. Thank you.

On the other hand, when a President and a majority of Congress lead America into war, this is also not speaking for the American people. Unless the people are united 100% at all times behind the war. Which has never happened.

At one extreme, one has libertarianism, which seems to eschew the concept of nation and ancillary concepts such as national borders. At the other extreme, the supreme leader speaks for the nation because any dissent is crushed – nothing like winning votes with 98% of the total, like in certain communist countries and Chicago.

Is there a definition of nation, with a national leader who is its representative and spokesman, its face to the world, that is functional and yet not totalitarian?

Maybe in some sense a President can be said to speak on behalf of the American people when he sends condolences or congratulations abroad on some uncontroversial matter. But he does not speak on behalf of the American people when he gives a speech taking positions on matters on which the American people are divided, or urges measures to which a substantial portion of the American electorate is opposed. In those cases he speaks for himself and perhaps also his followers or co-thinkers.

The stronger form of the claim would be that the leader of the state instantiates the will of the American people, and I would reject that too, as to any and all Presidents including this one.

Perhaps it should be. And this was an excellent start.