The United States government has more resources at its disposal than any organization in the history of the world, so that is settled. A banana republic is severely limited in resources. A “ludicrous” comparison.
empirically, the example I made of Truman proves you wrong. He pleased virtually nobody with enormous budgets, and now historians love him. Are you saying he had to please everyone? What is your particular definition of “had”?
Presidents benefit from the ideological veil that has been cast on government with the advent of democracy. People already buy into their schtick and view government, at best, as a necessary evil. This makes “running a country” particularly easy. In addition, their “customers” are coerced into “paying for services” unless of course they flee the country.
By stating that a president must please everyone, you have also failed to address what mechanism compels them. I will help you. Democracy right?
In a democracy the president is not compelled to change policy unless he feels his coalition of >50% voter support is threatened.
In a business if only one percent of customer support is threatened, it compels the company to make adjustments in proportion to the number dissatisfied customers. There is no such mechanism in government. If 49% want the govt ousted, they must still pay taxes. If 49% of a customer base go away, the company must make major adjustments in policy.
**This is the important part: when a company loses customers it also loses revenue and is hampered in its ability to acquire more resources and direct them. This is good because a 49% reduction in revenue means this company will no longer be bidding up resources and directing them towards ends which society has deemed unsatisfactory. If a president fails 49% of his taxpayers, he still continues to acquire resources and direct them to the same old ends that 49% of society has deemed unsatisfactory.
In summation, if you believe we live in a world of scarce resources, you can also see how government direction of the resources is relatively unresponsive to consumer demand, therefore you cannot support democracy unless you are against humans satisfying their needs and wants. **
Government ineffectiveness is exacerbated by the fact that they monopolize so many services (being kind here). For if 100% of a population disagrees with how a president conducts foreign policy, there may still be no mechanism for compelling change because 51% may agree with his domestic agenda and voters could place domestic issues as their priority in voting. The numbers are exaggerated here to demonstrate a principle.
If I go to Wal Mart and like their socks but not their bacon, I am not compelled to continue paying for their bacon as long as I buy their socks. If I was representative of their customer base, you could eventually see a further degradation in the quality of their bacon. There would be no mechanism to compel Wal Mart to improve their bacon.
In the business world there are competitors. Governments have a monopoly. Reach back to your middle school days and tell me which of these models are better for consumers. It really is as simple as that.