I applaud Obama for his speech on Tuesday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
As I'm new to integral vocabulary I'm not going to analyse it in those terms (but invite others to).
What stood out for me is that he has gone for a 'tell it like it is' approach rather than a calculated attempt to maximise votes (the journey not the destination). If he fails to win the presidency his campaign has been worthwhile; he has used his platform to invite everyone to look at things differently. He goes beyond the approach of the 'good' verses 'the bad'.
He refers to a Wesleyan Christianity where the world is not perfect but where we can all engage in perfecting it (again; the journey not the destination) as distinct for the approach of the Reverend Wright.

"... It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one":
that's gestalt if not integral; but it seems to me that he's talking about holons.

"... Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam":
here I think that he's being expedient; after expressing his understanding of black anger and white anger in the USA he could have gone on to apply the same approach to Palestinians and Israelis. Perhaps this would have been too much to be digested.

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show commented: "at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/jon-stewart-gets-all-earn_n_92448.html

I'm going to watch Obama again so may have more to add.

It is difficult to read Obama’s recent speech on race and not to feel the integral impulse behind it.

How did he handle the controversial comments by his former pastor, Reverend Wright?  First, he started by separating the Reverend from his ideas, embracing the former and rejecting the latter:

“The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor […].I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community”.

But even though he rejected the Reverend’s views, he did not dismiss them in toto  as the meaningless rants of a crazy old man, something that would have been, in his own words, “the politically safe to do”. Instead, he  acknowledged that the Reverend’s views are grounded in real grievances and real unresolved issues:

 “The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect”.

And this is how  Obama started talking about race relations in America.

“But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality”.

And he  did so with frankness and without falling into any kind of victimism:

“For the African-American community, that path [to a more perfect union] means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past”.

And without throwing the blame wholly on external causes:

“It [the anger] keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change”.

Also, unlike Reverend Wright, Obama,  while acknowledging a legacy of discrimination,  did not ignore the progress that has been made  and the progress that can still me made:

“The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old-  is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -what we have seen – is that America can change”.

In addition to this constant impulse to negate and preserve, to criticize what is partial but without failing to incorporate its own little nugget of truth, we can also find in the speech (as just pointed out by Anothereye ) an attempt to balance apparent opposites: individual and collective, unity and diversity.

“I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren”.

“But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one":

And all of this is set in an evolutionary context:

“This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected”.

“This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America”.

This is what the New York Times editorial concluded about the speech:

“What is evident, though, is that Obama  not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane”.

“Raising the discussion to a higher plane”, isn’t that exactly what the integral approach intends to do at the present time?

In short, what we have in this speech is a lot of integral elements. And if to those elements, you add Obama's charisma and  authenticity, you get the powerfully healing potion that the United States needs right now.

Yes, maybe I am making too much of  a deal out of one single speech and maybe Obama still has a long way to go to be considered a truly integral leader.  In fact, according to Cahacker, he has not even heard of Ken Wilber. But just going by this  speech, and simply following a process of elimination using Spiral Dynamics, can we honestly say that the values reflected in it are blue values, orange values, green values? No we can’t. There is something more here.

I therefore think that Rocco is absolutely right in what he wrote about the teal revolution starting with Obama (thank you so much for bringing up this issue)  and I also think that the Integral Institute should do everything to support him.

But what about Hillary?

Well, I  agree with Rocco that “she is tough and smart but still is a poll-driven politician with less experience than everyone thinks she has and did not have the right judgement when it came to Iraq”.

And Iraq is a big deal. Even republican senators like Chuck Hagel admit that it has been the biggest foreign polilcy mistake in US history (yes, there was a second-tier case to be  made for a military intervention in Iraq as a kind of “Cosmopolitan law-enforcement”, but we have not really reached the stage where that is possible).

In a recent IN dialogue with Jim Garrison, Ken Wilber said that Hillary is “keeping her foot intentionally in Orange modernist values”. O.K, but couldn’t she position herself a litle higher? Or to be elected, a supposedly integral politician has to be some kind of mole that has to hide his/her  true (developmental) colours? Of course, some kind of “skillful means” may be necessary, and you don’t want to speak from too high a level as to be completely uncomprehensible (for example if Ken Wilber were to run for president -not a bad idea-, he probably would not start by quoting a lot from the  Lankavatara Sutra). But that does not mean that you have to go “Republican light” as Jim Garrison noted about Hillatry. Tony Blair, for instance, was elected on a Third Way platform.  

Also, as Castel has pointed out, I am not too sure about how well the Clintons really “know” Ken’s work. As we all are well aware of, it takes more than a couple an hours and a quick reading of one of his books to really “know” integral philosophy.

The last thing that disturbs me about Hillary (and this may be in part my own projection), is the lack of authenticity, the phoniness that I feel is continuously emanating from her (as opposed to Obama’s authenticity). I also feel that with her husband, but much less so (it would be interesting to hear what David Deida has to say on these “emanations”).

Sorry for this long post (especially from a lazy foreigner who never posts anything), but I deeply feel that Obama is the man that the world needs right now. Yes, I said the world. Because, as George W. Bush has clearly demonstrated, the American president is much more than the president of a single counry. And, after the worst president in recent U.S.  history, the world deserves (and needs) something of the best that America can offer (I have nothing against Bush personally, he just should have stayed being the owner of a baseball club).
 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAM GREIDER writes in 'The Nation':
"In psychological terms, what's extraordinary is his refusal to split off himself and his own experience from those others. So he embraced them, knowing the risks. Then he tells us--audaciously--that we are capable of doing the same. Yet most of us do the opposite in everyday life, defining ourselves in contrast to the others we are not, idealizing our own selves by demonizing the others".
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=300422

IN subscribers will remember that Ken Wilber and Jim Turner recently discussed the contrasting ideas of Jefferson and Hamilton regarding the proper role of government, and how both carried important truths that needed to be transcended and included.

Check out Senator Obama's recent major speech on the economy (link to full speech below):

The great task before our Founders that day was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. For Alexander Hamilton, the young Secretary of the Treasury, that task was bound to the vigor of the American economy.

Hamilton had a strong belief in the power of the market. But he balanced that belief with the conviction that human enterprise “may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the government.” Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity. So he nationalized the state Revolutionary War debts, weaving together the economies of the states and creating an American system of credit and capital markets. And he encouraged manufacturing and infrastructure, so products could be moved to market.

Hamilton met fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson, who worried that this brand of capitalism would favor the interests of the few over the many. Jefferson preferred an agrarian economy because he believed that it would give individual landowners freedom, and that this freedom would nurture our democratic institutions. But despite their differences, there was one thing that Jefferson and Hamilton agreed on – that economic growth depended upon the talent and ingenuity of the American people; that in order to harness that talent, opportunity had to remain open to all; and that through education in particular, every American could climb the ladder of social and economic mobility, and achieve the American Dream.

In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen. Throughout this saga, Americans have pursued their dreams within a free market that has been the engine of America's progress. It's a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and opportunity for generations of Americans. A market that has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

I wonder if there has been a discussion on these forums yet at all of the recent comments Obama made that have caused such controversy in the past couple days.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Many people are quite offended by the "cling to guns or religion" part. Clinton is calling him "elitist."
I agree it wasn't tactfully said.
He seems to be describing the amber altitude and blaming it on economic lack of growth.
It seems that one of the biggest pitfalls for integrally-minded people is to come off sounding elitist.
And its especially dangerous for a politician, especially since the amber crowd is very wary of the green crowd belittling their religious devotion.

I'm a big fan of Obama all-around though.

Anyone else have any integral insights on this?

Here's my two cents worth, agentjeff.  I agree, it was particularly unskillful to lump "they cling to...religion" in with "antipathy to people who aren't like them" and "anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiment".  It sounds like that part of the speech might have been written by someone who has read but not thoroughly understood Spiral Dynamics and effective ways to apply its concepts. I think it's rarely, if ever, effective for a politician to try and categorize a block of voters publicly - no matter what model one uses for the categorization.  Better to acknowledge the frustration resulting from their economic situation and the related lack of attention and broken promises related to these people's needs, and then focus on ways to remedy the problems.

Hi agentjeff; you wrote:
"He seems to be describing the amber altitude and blaming it on economic lack of growth.
It seems that one of the biggest pitfalls for integrally-minded people is to come off sounding elitist".

My 2 cents worth: One of the many useful things about the spiral dynamics model is to use it in order to assess your audience. If speaking to/with orange it is advisable to choose a different way of saying something than if speaking with/to green. I say this because Barak was addressing a fundraising meeting; he probably forgot that whatever he said would be broadcast to a wider audience (perhaps he's learnt from this?). Having said that; it doesn't seem that he's been wounded by the controversy.

I think that he does understand the idea of 'the journey not the destination/ the process not the result' (unlike Hillary Clinton who seems more determined on the result (which I think is going to be her downfall). Having said that; Barak Obama does not always seem consistent. Did he not say that he would talk to "the enemy" (sorry; I don't have a link) and yet today I read that he has critisised Jimmy Carter for talking to Hammas:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVwlW3eiwRhUWbDS2BXr5T9KoOBgD9033JQ01

I am Joe Blow. I have my family and friends. They mean a lot to me. I will still have them no matter who is elected as the next President.

So let me ask a pointed question: what exactly will Mr. Obama do when he is elected that makes him different from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. McCain? And what substantive improvement does that bring to me, my group, the country, the world, and all sentient beings?

For me, eloquency does not mean squat.

Bottom line. What specifically will he do that they will not do that is of substantial importance?

And secondarily, what is it that he can do that we cannot do?

During the Vietnam War, we voiced our feelings by hitting the streets. Many Americans ostensibly want out of Iraq, but I am not seeing the marching happening.

What specifically happens of significance if/when Mr. Obama is elected? And how is it that this cannot happen absent his election?

Which law needs to be changed? Is this something you personally feel needs to be changed, or is there overwhelming support for it? If there is overwhelming support, then surely it would have already happened?

My bottom line: anything that really needs to be done is in the hands of citizens to do. So what is it that Mr. Obama is going to do that is so important for our country and is also something that we the people have been unable to do ourselves.

In anticipation, I ask again: how many times have you personally marched in opposition to the Iraq War?

What I love about America is that we get exactly what we want. And when I say "we" I don't mean enlightened Integral Institute readers. I mean Americans collectively. Not all Americans are green or even orange. But they are Americans and they are doing what they think is right from where they are standing giving the tools of understanding they possess.

Is Mr. Obama going to release repressed mechanisms of enlightenment that will usher in a beautiful beginning? What specifically is he going to do that Americans collectively want and demand done?

90% of talk and assessment of the candidates seems to be silliness piled on nonsense. The candidates know that we want silliness and nonsense and that they cannot be elected without going through the silly season.

Mr. Obama is a very decent man. He is very smart, he shows good awareness, and he understands the macroscopic systems at issue.

But, when it is over, and Mr. Obama is elected as the next President - what does he then do that the other candidates won't do and we cannot do ourselves?

We are coming to the end of Bush era. To put it simply, many feel strongly that it has been a bad time. I ask, what part about it do you feel so strongly about that you led that last big march on the Capitol? How many times have you been in contact with your lawmakers, along with 100,000 others who feel the same way?

I am not a big fan of the mythic fawning over politicians. We should be fawning over ourselves as the true masters of our country. And as for those changes that really need to be made, we should be able to show the figurative blood on our hands to get there. Absent that, it really didn't matter that much, eh? And if we do have blood on our hands and the thing didn't happen, it kind of means that there was not enough support for it.

Remember Cindy Sheahan? The woman who actually hit the road in opposition to the war? If we don't like the war and we weren't there with her outside the ranch in Crawford, then we left her standing outside in the cold.

Let me ask it another way: how is the interior life of my neighbor Bob, our collective interior life, his physical world, and the physical world systems we share supposed to change as a result of the election of Mr. Obama? And which of those things were not already within his or my power?

I am very interested in hearing some very specific answers to these questions.  

 

Hey Schalk, the answer is simple the president and the federal government can simply do things that private citizens can't. Cindy Sheehan can complain about the war but her protests won't end it, marching won't end it and the American people telling pollsters they want it over won't end it and so Mr. Obama and hopefully with a strong Democratic Majority can with the power of the Government end the war.

The same goes for health care, environmental issues, and bringing in a fair economic system.  Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton oops I mean Mrs. Clinton have the same stances on the same issues except I think Obama is more capable of getting Universal Health Care (citizens can't get that without governement adjusting the system to be cheaper and more efficient )   better environmental standards set for  the factories that pollute all over America and getting a bill passed to force car companies to raise fuel standards(in america it something around 20 something mpg's and Japan is around 40 mpg's) as well as having a better mor fair tax system (if you make over 250,000 dollars a year you pay 15% tax and if you make under 250,000 dollars a year you pay 30% !!!). I think he is more capable of getting things done cause people just like him including many Republicans and he respects people who disagree with him and can work across the aisle and build bridges to get things done. John Mccain on the other hand is simply a Republican and he wants to keep the same failing economic plan going the same failing heatlh care system going and the same failed Iraq war strategy going so the Democrats will be much better than John Mccain.

Better economic system, cleaner environment, better health care system, ending a war that is in a stalemate and costing us many US soldiers lives and bankrupiting our country (the war cost 12 billion dollars a month and we will have our taxes raised in the future cause we haven't started paying for it yet!!)  It matters very much to all of us Joe Blows who is in office and the sad thing is that nobody understands how important it is.  Some things are too big for private citizens protests to change. It takes knowledgeable private citizens making noise and demanding change as well as people in power such as Congress and a President to bring the change into law. I'd recommend  checking out Obamas HIllarys and Mccain s  websites and read where they stand on the issues, you'd be doing yourself and our country a favor by being a little more informed today than you were yesterday.

I apologise if my writing isn't put together well I just got home from work and need sleep. If you need any clarification just put it in your response.

---

Rocco

Rocco:

Thanks for getting back. I think you will find that I probably agree with almost all of your stated values as values.

That said, I believe the biggest crisis facing America today is our collective willingness to give up our ownership of our country to smooth talking slicksters who are past-masters at lying, dancing, cooing, pandering, and triangulating.

You seem like a smart guy. Let me say this point blank: if you were running for President of the U.S., I would vote for you before I vote for any of the candidates who are running now. I bet you would be more honest and would take more direct action to accomplish things that need to be accomplished regardless of the political fallout.

My question was: what exactly is it of major significance that Mr. Obama is going to do that the other candidates are not going to do and how are these things not already in the power of the citizens to accomplish or prevent?

You mentioned the following:

1. Ending the war.

2. Health care.

3. Environmental issues.

4. A fair economic system.

The War: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 further states that the President can commit troops in overseas conflict only with the authority of Congress. So, how exactly is it that the President is the arbiter of whether we go to war or not?

Regarding the end of the Vietnam War, most people would agree that the grass roots opposition to the war (as demonstrated by real people taking to the real streets) and the pressure applied by the Democratic Congress installed in the 1974 mid-term elections were decisive in getting the President to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

So, how is that that only Mr. Obama can get us out of Iraq again?

Health care: you say that Obama is more capable of getting Universal Health Care for us. Is he going to sign an Executive Order to accomplish that? Of course not. Your Congressmen and my Congressmen are going to write laws to accomplish that - when you and I and about 10 million other people show that we are sick and tired of letting Big Pharma rip us off and let the less fortunate among us go bankrupt trying to stay alive.

Legislation is what the legislature does. And if we really want a law, our legislators can override a Presidential veto to get those laws on the books.

So, how is it that only Mr. Obama can get us a better health care system?

Environmental issues: what specifically are you thinking needs to be done? A really great way to curb activity that harms the environment is to make laws that criminalize the conduct. That tends to the get the attention of big corporations. A couple of multi-million dollar fines go a long ways toward altering the behavior of corporate America.

Again, it seems to me that your Congressmen have quite a bit of power to get us where we need to go - if they make up their minds to go there. And this only happens when you and me and 1 million other voters show up on their door step and tell them to get off their asses and do it.

So, how is that our environmental woes can only be solved by Mr. Obama?

A fair economic system: I believe you will find general agreement that the U.S. needs a fair economic system. And I also believe you will find that there are a lot of people in this great land of ours who believe that a fair economic system is one that provides a marketplace where the strong and the clever and the well-connected and the lucky survive while the rest of the people try again.

I venture to guess that half of the country at least feels pretty comfortable that our economic system is fair as it is. Paid taxes in the UK recently?

As for tax legislation, again, your Congressmen are in a great position to make laws to accomplish whatever needs to be done.

So, what exactly is it that Mr. Obama is going to do to bring about this fair economic system that you speak of? And how is he better situated that our legislators to do this?

Are there any other actions that the new President will take that are of major significance and only within his/her power to accomplish?

What is my point?

My point is that Americans have stopped owning their own country. We wait for election year and get excited about this candidate or that who has littered the campaign trail with vague promises and a commitment to a better future and much hullabaloo. And then we wait and hope that something good happens.

But the number of us who actually care enough to demand action today are few.

I contend that there is very little a President can do in the face of massive popular will to the contrary. Massive popular will, that is, that is manifested by the people in a committed manner.

And so the question becomes, if that popular will is not so massive, then does that not mean that a signfiicant number of citizens hold a contrary position. And in such a case, is it not right that either nothing is done or the position of the contrarians prevails?

So, what again is Mr. Obama going to do that is so significant and that we do not already have the power ourselves to do?

In fact, I would like you to give me a list of the ten most important things that Mr. Obama is going to do for the country. And please ensure that none of those things involves the creation of legislation that falls under Article 1 of the Constitution, or I will tell you that you and your Congressmen are supposed to be doing that important stuff already.

Please be explicit about exactly what he is going to do and what specific authority he will exercise to bring it about.

I think you will find it hard. Our President is not a king. We still have a Constitution and it still is designed to let us as the people define and craft the kind of country we want without waiting for a new executive to do it for us.

Unfortunately, the reality of America is that many of the "problems" I see are not problems for a large number of other Americans. Many of the "emergencies" that I demand a response to are not a major problem for many others.

And the way the system is designed, my enlightened vision is worth only one vote. My neighbor Bob who loves war, believes in an unbridled free market, and is not convinced that global warming is a fact has a vote that is just as powerful as mine. And that is the way it should be.

 

schalk:

And the way the system is designed, my enlightened vision is worth only one vote. My neighbor Bob who loves war, believes in an unbridled free market, and is not convinced that global warming is a fact has a vote that is just as powerful as mine. And that is the way it should be.

 

That's assuming, of course, that both votes are counted! 

IMPEACH the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches!!!

ELECT YOUR NEIGHBORS!

(All in good fun)

Garbageman:

Touche!

Hey, let me ask you a question. After Bill Clinton finished his service as our President, Hillary Clinton became a Senator from New York.

I did not know that she was a New Yorker, but I guess she found a way to qualify under the rules.

What specifically has she done to further the compelling interests of the people of New York? Can you point to anything that she has done that reflects an effort to bring to the Congress for legislative consideration that which the people of New York demand?

 

 

Hi schalk,
I just read this and thought of your recent post:

by Michael Lerner
The Phenomenon is not Barack Obama. Senator Obama is a masterful organizer and teacher. But this editorial is not about Obama as much as about what he elicits in others, and should not be read as an endorsement of him.
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0803/frontpage/phenom

My Friend:

I tip my hat to you! Excellent!

I asked a question and you provided an absolutely spectacular piece that cuts straight to the heart of the issue! 

This is what the Web and community forum discussions can do at their best! Do you know how rare it is for that to happen? 

For those of you who are reading this: I asked the basic question "what is Obama going to do specifically that is so important and how is it that we cannot already do this ourselves?"

Anothereye provides a masterful article at http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0803/frontpage/phenom that may be the best concise statement of what we need and why we need it from our next President.

The author puts it plainly.

What Obama is doing is eliciting in each and every one of us:

the intense desire of every human being on this planet to

overcome and transcend the materialism and selfishness that shape the global economic arrangements and permeate the consciousness of all people,

overcome the looking-out-for-number one consciousness that divides us and the technocratic language that shapes our public institutions and denies us access to our common humanity,

and to overcome the alienation from each other that this way of being has created so that we might once again recognize each other as embodiments of God or Spirit (or however you want to talk about the force-field of goodness, generosity, kindness, justice, peace, nonviolence, and care for each other and nature and the entirety of all that is).

Wow! Does this not sum up the basic issue and opportunity that is presented to us in the upcoming Presidential election?

These are impulses we all share. These are our highest aspirations. These are things we all know that we need to do.

Or to put it another way, as civil rights were the banner that galvanized a courageous generation 40 years ago, overcoming:

 1. materialism,

2. selfishness,

3. looking-out-for-number-one consciousness, and

4. alienation from each other

is the most important work for the generation of Americans voting today.

Obama will not directly solve these problems. He will not sign an Executive Order banning alientaion.

But, he will elicit from the people (us) who are in a position to substantially act in a way that furthers these solutions the "courage" and awareness" necessary to do it. And they will do it. And things are going to get really good. And this is going to elicit some very interesting and welcome and positive developments around the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay Schalk I must ask, What is it about Obama that has you a little bothered, I don't get it. I never said Obama is gonna magically solve everyones problems or anything. So the president doesn't absolutely 100% single-handedly end the war all by himself, he gets elected by telling people he will end the war they elect him then he and an elected Congress will end it. Okay? The President is the leader and representative of the majority of the country. He says what he believes if they agree they elect him and with the power and influence of the Presidency as well as the will and approval of the American people behind him he puts things into law with the help and consent of elected representatives (Congress) and they physically pass it in the Congress.  Does that clear things up?

 

---

Rocco