Leader of the Free World

[Leoreth]

Do you think the US President is or should be considered the leader of the free world?

This topic was shortly mentioned in the third debate commentary thread, and I've seen it come up in other threads too. It's never really been followed up on in detail, at least not to my knowledge, but my impression is that the notion is pretty divisive both for Americans and non Americans.

Also, what does "leader of the free world" mean to you? Does it come with a responsibility? Is the idea a relic of the Cold War, or still relevant today?

Poll coming. Edit: or is it? Apparently I don't know how to create polls.

 

[Tee Kay]

As the most powerful democracy the United States is the leader of the free world by default.

The responsibility it entails is the responsibility that comes with being the most powerful country in history; not use military force recklessly, use influence to safeguard peace between countries, intervene in conflicts within countries where appropriate.

 

[amadeus]

To your first questions: no and no. If he's the leader of anything, it's the freer world, only so as to differentiate it from those places where governments are even worse.

In geopolitical terms, the U.S. still has considerable sway, but not nearly as much as it did in the 1950s when the term was first popularized. Today, the U.S. is falling even faster as poorer countries begin to catch up with the West. I'd say it's a meaningless Cold War relic that has rightfully fallen out of use.

 

[Berzerker]

leader of the free world is oxymoronic

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Leader of the freer world is Indian PM obviously as India is the largest democracy.

 

[civver_764]

leader of the free world is oxymoronic

Agreed.

 

[bhsup]

It's just a hold over term we still use from the cold war when we really could say that with some legitimacy. Now we tend to use it just to tweak our dear friends in Europe.

 

[Zack]

It's an empty, nominal title.

 

[illram]

It's just a hold over term we still use from the cold war when we really could say that with some legitimacy. Now we tend to use it just to tweak our dear friends in Europe.

Pretty much.

 

[W|M]

Leader of the freer world is Indian PM obviously as India is the largest democracy.

By that measure, you could also say that Putin is the leader of the free world.

 

[Mango Elephant]

It really depends on the president. Jill Stein would be the leader of whatever she wanted to be the leader of if she were the American president.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is? Absolutely not. We are better than Europe in some ways, but we are clearly worse in others. When it comes to spying on our own citizens and starting wars (Read: Solving problems through arms doesn't make you a good leader necessarily, but only if it was the right choice, which basically means WWII and the War of 1812, plus the Revolution and if you count the CSA as part of the USA, the War for Southern Independence, and pretty much no other time thus far) we fall behind.

SHOULD BE? That depends on how you are defining the term. We should be the leaders of the free world by setting an example...

 

[Archbob]

I pity the fools who think that there is still a free world.

 

[GhostWriter16]

There are varying degrees of "Free."

 

[Grendeldef]

By that measure, you could also say that Putin is the leader of the free world.

There are varying degrees of "Free."

However freedom is measured my imagination just isn't capable of picturing Putin as a leader of free world nor do I think that US president is or should be one. There has to be something else than having a large military and being more willing to start a war than others but I also don't see the need for 'leader of free world'. I much more prefer the GW's idea of leading by setting an example whomever the person or country might be.

G

 

[Agarwaen]

It was already an empty tittle in the cold war. To still call yourself "leader of the free world" today is kinda decadent, kinda like the United Kingdom calling themselves "British Empire" over the Commonwealth.

 

[Winner]

The US is still the cornerstone of today's international system (for better or worse). In that sense, the US president is indeed a world leader - no other individual country comes close.

If Europe was a federal state capable of acting as a single entity internationally, it would perhaps be a better leader of the "free world" than the US (given the fact it's more socially advanced), but that's not the case, so we're stuck with the Americans.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Cold War artifact.
If we're being generous Clinton could be considered the last one thanks to america's supremacy and reputation during the mid to late nineties. Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghuraib have put an end to that claim, and an intelligent, charismatic and not too black president and pretty speeches won't change it back.

 

[aronnax]

I don't remember an election for that post.

 

[WindFish]

Doesn't the leader of the free world have to come from a country that is free?