I am not sure a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to keep up public support for his policies. I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support. What keeps this system from breaking down is the fundamental public trust, which does not need to be measured in terms of public support -- I may not support my government's action, but I need to trust that they are not engaged in active evil, that they take the public trust seriously. What makes the current situation so toxic is that the so-called needs of security, secret intelligence, and anti-terrorism depend (in democracies) on fundamental trust in the honesty of our leaders, if they claim to be making decisions based on intelligence that cannot be made public. We have overwhelming evidence that we have been lied to and manipulated by ideologues who are untrustworthy.

This is why the remark -- "Were he to draw attention to the dead, it would result in a loss of public support for a policy that he believes is correct" -- is, I think, wrong. Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg and drew attention to the dead, so as to ensure the nation that while he might have difficulties with public support, he was the keeper of the public trust.

yours,

Peter T.