Excellent article. Although the “statist run media” would like to depict the so-called leader as a “CEO” of the nation, the best depiction is pathological narcissism. The self-love and lack of empathy is pathological, and easily allows the so-called leader to overcome any trauma associated with the his/her acts of coercion or violence. The interesting issue behind many of the rising tyrants is that they sometimes come from the so-called “underclass” populace. Obama as have others tout this “feature” as being able to “empathize” with his constituents. However, this touting is merely deception to elevate himself and further his cause to subjugate the constuents. When the “statist run media” further “advertise” leaders such as Obama as a “CEO,” it further adds to the leader’s growing narcissism. Author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book “Being There” that describes this style of “leadership” as well as the cult-like following as a form of a “Being There Syndrome.” A leader appears from seemingly nowhere and beguiles the populace, but underneath there is only an empty suit only subjugation. http://www.amazon.com/Being-There-Jerzy-Kosinski/dp/0802136346

Re: Buffet. The man used to be of sound mind, but that has changed significantly in the past couple decades. Nowadays, he’s just embarrassing. Today, he has little respect for property rights unless it involves his property, see his investment in a bailout beneficiary, Goldman Sachs. It’s a shame, Buffet and his value investing system seems like one of the best ways to create wealth. That Buffet has turned his back on how capital and human well being is created and grown is both illogical and disheartening.

Re: CEO’s and the office of president of the US. I wish there was a corporate board and I was chairman, so I could have the opportunity to fire presidents, be they Bush, Obama, or whoever. CEO of the nation? Yeah, right. If the US was a company with traded shares, I would be shorting it like crazy.

Nice treatment by analogy, but it is as important to oberve where it breaks down as well as where it holds.
Your analogy about the relationship between shareholders and voters is weak.
“In a political democracy, we are told we must always abide by the will of the majority. Citizens who hold desires or opinions that run contrary to the desires or opinions of the majority have but two options. They can somehow convince the majority that their desires are worthy and their opinions are correct, or they can leave the country. Neither option offers much hope for those unfortunate enough to find themselves in the minority.”
You then go on to explain that shareholders can easily sell their shares, unlike voters. However you are overlooking some very important distinctions.
First, the counterweight to the “tyranny of the majority” is the Constitution, and the rights of the individual that cannot be abridged by the majority. Therefore, it is the right to the process of education and persuasion (i.e. free speech) that presents an option to simply packing up and leaving, which you describe as the only alternative open to the minority on any given issue, including the choice for President or any other public Office.
Second, you are completely ignoring the consumer as the real sovereign in the economic sense. The consumer is the corollary to the voter, not the shareholder. I think you mean that the shareholder in a corporation is analogous to those party supporters who “invested” the $1.7B in the presidential campaign. They did so because they valued the “product” that was being offered, for whatever reasons. Those who’s candidate lost did not profit from their investment.
A CEO who produces a product that is not purchased by consumers, will either be replaced, if the BOD is wise, or will bankrupt the corporation, in which case all current shareholders will lose their investment; those who “get out early” retain more of their capital, thus providing the crucial “price calculation” to the markets who trade in securities.
By analogy, and in actual fact, the voters are sovereign in the political sense. There simply is no getting around the fact that voters have “purchased” their politicians. The political process, as it currently exists, requires that, using your numbers, $1.7B be invested to support the means of production required to produce one President. As with corporations, the political investors have pooled their resources to fund the means of production, i.e. the political process.
The very valid point you do make is that the President is not the people’s CEO in the sense that government has no valid role (or very, very limited by today’s standards) in business, because they are not subject to the price/profit calculus in a direct sense, and there cannot efficiently manage the means of production.