Or until people in high places simply ignore it.
He’s so crooked I’ve started to call him The Leader of the Free Lunch.
But what will be the event(s) that will remind him there’s no such thing? Who’s going to call in the debt?
But you do realize it isn’t the ONLY free country, right?
We’re open for suggestions on how to get rid of this impacted turd. Laxatives aren’t working.
So many American’s, including those in the now ruling oligarchy, don’t realize how the world views the US, or fail to think it matters. Nationalism at it’s finest, damn the truth interfere.
I would say that this phrase had some meaning during the cold war. Back when we had the First world, second world and third world countries, it could be argued that the First world was the “Free world” and in terms of uniting it against the spread of the second world, the United States took a clear leadership role through NATO. With the elimination of the uniting threat after the cold war, and with the rise of the EU, the importance of US leadership in the former first world nations has diminished, until all GWB could bring together in his coalition of the willing was Britain, Austrailia and don’t forget Poland.
Now with the remains of the first world withdrawing in horror from our new Commander in Chief, who seems to be in favor of dropping NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia, while leaving eastern Europe out to dry, it is clear that America in anything but the leader of the free world.
Its a certainty. The rise of China and the resurgence of Russia make it inevitable.
Certainly, but the phrase is still apposite. Trump is the leader of the US. The US is a free country. It is by far the most powerful of those countries to which we attach the label free. Those countries, whether they like it or not, are dependent in various ways on the US. None could realistically describe themselves as the Leader of the Free World. The US can and does.
As I said there are no value judgments in the phrase. It simply describes reality.
You’re jumping from “most powerful” to “leader of,” which doesn’t make any sense.
The President of my company is the leader of the people who work here because he actually has, in accordance with established parameters, influence over how people behave as members of the company.
If I step onto a city bus today I might be the biggest, strongest person on the bus. That doesn’t make me Leader of the Passengers of Bus 143.
“Leader” doesn’t mean “biggest.” It means a person who leads. When the United States was the country leading the Allies in their opposition to Communism, the appellation was a bit of an exaggeration, but it did make some sense. It really doesn’t anymore, especially when you have a President who makes it a point to say he doesn’t care about alliances and such.
Surprisingly, armies are not led by the strongest member and the leader of a police force is not generally the most badass fistfighter. A leader is someone others follow. If you add on a qualifier like “of the free world” it also seems to indicate that they follow of their own free will.
Are you saying that Trump’s victory was inevitable, or that we would still be in the same situation had Clinton won? I know Jared Diamond and others look down on the Great Person theory of history, but I disagree. If Clinton had won I would be happy to call her leader of the free world. Trump, on the other hand, has abandoned the title. I suspect that if someone were to ask him he would probably reject the title proudly and say something about how he is looking out for the USA first and to hell with rest of the world, they can look out themselves.
I’ve posted this before but I think it bears repeating. Either there is no longer a leader of the free world or the title now belongs to Angela Merkel. I lean towards the former, but the blame for that is entirely on Trump, not on some inevitable rise of China and Russia.
I think the problem is the definition of Leader of the Free World. If you mean the country which has most influence over other free countries then by any standard it’s still the US. If you take it to mean a country whch leads and others follow then you make a fair point.
I’ve always taken it in the former sense, thus answering the point that strength is not a consideration. In that respect it certainly is.
None of those things make you free. And, if you aren’t free, then you cannot lead the Free World.
If the reason you are doing something is that the guy with the bigger guns is making you, then you aren’t free.
It’s like saying the criminal with a gun at your head is your leader.