I don't know about it being just overparsing. I think it goes to show how important words are. Words do have meaning and IMO Whittle could have said what he meant in a way that implied that if the "unit" is once again to be great we will not have the President or any future President to thank for it. The President is only allowed to do so much, I think we can all agree on that, and saying the President or any can, will or should lead us into greatness is wrong on many different levels IMO.
Of course it is not overparsing. Spend a little time thinking about it, looking for other manifestations, etc.
For example, how many times have we seen someone advocating this or that law or regulation to fix this or that social problem. Whoa! Wait a minute. The underlying premise is that government
is the proper method for fixing social problems. Ever heard the charge "social engineering" leveled at certain liberals, and maybe even some conservatives? To hell with literature like
The Scarlet Letter, A Modest Proposal, and
Uncle Tom's Cabin--society's authors inspiring society to solve social problems. Phuck philosphers. Clip the clergy. Just turn it over to government. This goes right along with making the president the leader of the nation.
Lets look at it from another angle, too. It doesn't matter whether the president's ideas are right or best. Since he is also nominated "the leader of the country", as some would have it, his ideas are the ones that we are asked/persuaded/bully-pulpited to follow. Now,
qui bono? That is to ask, "Who benefits? Who benefits from this idea that the president is the "leader of the nation?" Who benefits from society following the president's lead? (Keep in mind how putrid the government can be--lobbyists, back room dealing, ear-marks. Think about this president's State of the Union comment about energy independence and ethanol subsidies the next time you buy some frozen corn at an outrageous price.)
So, who nominated the leader of the executive branch as the leader of the nation? A prosy press trying to sell papers? A preacher? (I came across such in relation to Lincoln, telling his flock they should follow the president. Haven't followed up on the cite, though) I'm sorry, I don't see press, flowery prose, or anybody mentioned in the Constitution as having the authority to elevate the president to "leader of the nation" or "leader of the free world."
He's not an ancient Hebrew king on a four-year rotation, you know.