Do Americans genuinely think of the President as "the leader of the free world" or is that just a Hollywood line?
Posted by ohnojono@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 77 comments
[removed]
LeadDiscovery@reddit
Its more of a Hollywood line, but it has some truth to it.
Essentially with the leading military and economic engine - what the USA does or pushes for is what generally happens.
Is this all coming from the President? No. He or she simply represents this concept in human form. Clearly in practice it is our entire government and the people that drive the engine of economics and fill out our military.
Im_a_hamburger@reddit
I mean it’s hard to think of a more powerful leader of a democratic nation, you can argue some of them, of course; but POTUS is very powerful.
But we don’t say that line.
FatJezuz445@reddit
I mean there some truth to it since we are the main one with actual influence over the world but no we don’t call ourselves that or think our country has done no wrong.
New-Number-7810@reddit
The term “Free World” dates back to the Cold War, to refer to the Western Bloc which was made up primarily of liberal democracies. The term stuck around after the Cold War, because the Western Bloc won.
The POTUS is called the Leader of the Free World because of how the US is expected to promote and uphold democracy in the world. When a liberal democracy is invaded, the US comes to its aid by sending in either soldiers or supplies.
AcidAndBlunts@reddit
Same with the terms first, second, and third world.
Most people use it like a ranking of economic standing and technological development, but it is really about Cold War alliances.
First world is the U.S. and its allies. Second world is Russia and its allies. Third world are those that are not officially aligned with either side (and often being fought over).
El_Polio_Loco@reddit
40 years ago that would be the definition, but language is not fixed and the concepts have changed.
sgtm7@reddit
As they are currently misused,they are not well defined. Can you define which countries are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?
El_Polio_Loco@reddit
There is no absolute definition, but it’s generally synonymous with economic capacity.
First world - fully developed economies such as the US, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, EU, etc.
Second world - developing economies, also now known as BRIC countries. Nations with some “modern” economic capacity but also large swaths of under or completely undeveloped industry. Like Mexico, Brazil, China, India, Egypt, maybe Turkey, Ethiopia, Nigeria.
Third world is to mean the least developed economies, nation states at high risk of failure or actively failing, Sudan, DRC, North Korea etc.
I think if you took anyone off the street they would agree with this definition.
sgtm7@reddit
You are just as likely to have someone describe the countries you claim to be second world as either third world or first world.
El_Polio_Loco@reddit
And you would just point to slums and skyscrapers.
Second world countries have parts of both.
sgtm7@reddit
Hell, the USA has slums.
El_Polio_Loco@reddit
Real question, how much travel experience do you have in under or undeveloped nations?
wooper346@reddit
This is the origin of the terms, but colloquially it refers to economic standing.
NoFilterNoLimits@reddit
This is one of many reasons that political scientists now tend to use developed/developing instead of 1st/2nd/3rd. Those terms have been out of favor academically since at least the early 2000s
platetone@reddit
I had no idea that's what the second world was, figured Russia and many allies were considered first world... actually thought we just skipped over 2nd and went straight to third, haha.
JonCoqtosten@reddit
It's more a slogan than anything people take all that seriously. Sometimes people will say it just to emphasize the gravity of the position - as in "Do you really think that maniac is fit to be the leader of the free world?" - but it's rare to meet anyone that actually believes other countries just do whatever the President tells them, if that's what you're asking. There are some people that think that's the way it should be, of course, but I dare say delusions aren't a uniquely American phenomenon.
Potato_Octopi@reddit
It's a cold war reference. It's pretty cringe to not be aware of that.
US was the leader of the West / "free world". USSR and the Iron Curtain were the bad guys.
Wicked-Pineapple@reddit
Not just the bad guys, but fascist governments in which the people were not free.
Hoosier_Jedi@reddit
The world doesn’t look to Canada to deal with China and Russia.
Chimney-Imp@reddit
When any country needs aid, they almost always come to us first. We are partnered with the other countries in NATO, but it's not an equal partnership at all.
Wicked-Pineapple@reddit
Some might call it an unhealthy relationship, as we contribute a whole lot more.
b0ingy@reddit
Sure it does. weaponized maple syrup and apologies!
Vachic09@reddit
Canada has two modes: apologetic or genocidal
MetroBS@reddit
Your ignorance of the office of the president regarding diplomacy and leading the free world is making me cringe right now
Brother_To_Coyotes@reddit
That’s history man. Hasn’t been true since 1989
Now there isn’t even a “free world” bloc to lead.
baalroo@reddit
What tends to be more "cringe" to us is how many non-americans expect us to foot the bill and put our kids on the line any time anyone needs something, but then act snotty and rude about it if we in any way use terminology or phrasing that might imply that we are expected to be the leaders and saviors in these situations.
Brother_To_Coyotes@reddit
I’m happy to let the world fend for itself for awhile. Just keep our trade routes open.
ArcticosSL@reddit
Do you cringe before, after, or during the time you're running to us for help?
grimm1111@reddit
Yes. I'm sorry that makes you cringe, but the fact is America is the lone global superpower and global leader, and America's president is probably the most powerful human being on earth. "Leader of the Free World" fits, cringe or not.
Upset-Win9519@reddit
Many have suggested the President is perhaps a figurehead with others calling the shots. These days I can almost believe anything lol! The President is supposed to be the leader but we can never tell how good they'll be until their in.
America is still largely the free world. Nobody is completely free. But I am often amazed at the number of people who live in America and complain about it. You get away with things here other countries would not allow. It isn't perfect. But America has lots of luxuries other countries don't get to enjoy. I also love the different people you can meet here.
kangareagle@reddit
You say "the rest of us," but I've heard that same line from non-US media dozens of times.
cdb03b@reddit
Yes.
The Free world is talking about the First World Nations during the Cold War, which are the US and its allies. The US being the most powerful nation in that list makes us the leaders of it.
For reference, Second World Nations were the USSR and its allies, and it applies to the former soviet block in many but not all conversations in modernity. Third World Nations are those that were unaligned, and so it does not directly comment on economic power or industrial development but does so tangentially because both the US and USSR funded the development of allies.
Jakebob70@reddit
Domestic politics aside, yes. The President of the United States is considered the leader of the free world.
Redbubble89@reddit
Given how much the US impact global policy and how we seem to be the ones financially and militarily supplying the Ukrainians since the Russia invasion and South Koreans for decades, how aren't we?
If China invades Taiwan, how fast are the Japanese and Australians going to call the US asking for help?
We don't deal with domestic policy but we do steer global policy in favor of democracy.
Current_Poster@reddit
It's more of a "newspaper phrase" but it's similar.
Vachic09@reddit
We're the only superpower with a lot of influence. While it has some truth to it, I think that you are reading too much into it.
captainstormy@reddit
Yeah, when we say leader of the free world. We don't mean that we rule you or your people need to particularly care about what our government says. It's not an empire building kinda thing.
What we mean is if China, North Korea or Russia pop off y'all are looking to us to do something about it.
Well, to be fair you can look to South Korea if North Korea pops off. But China and Russia is all us.
UnfairHoneydew6690@reddit
I think even in a Korean War scenario everyone would still be looking at us to do something. We’d be funding South Korea at the very least.
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
Our troops stationed there would be swept up in it immediately. They're there as a roadblock/speedbump.
SWMovr60Repub@reddit
Right
They won’t save Seoul; they are there to force North Korea to engage US troops in combat.
MyUsername2459@reddit
We've got 28,000+ troops in South Korea.
If North Korea started the war up again, we're right in the thick of it.
captainstormy@reddit
I'm not saying we wouldn't be involved. I'm just saying the South Korean military is very much chomping at the bit to deal with the North.
coyote_of_the_month@reddit
Not really. Toppling the North Korean regime would be the largest humanitarian crisis in history. You'd have an entire nation of refugees, brainwashed and largely loyal to their dear leader, with no education by any modern standard.
South Korea isn't ready for that kind of train wreck. Nobody is. Containment is the only viable strategy.
bell37@reddit
It’s more than that. US foreign policy has always been two fold (strength and economic support).
Coincidently US has more influence in terms of financial aid than it does with projecting military strength offshore. Not only do we have deep pockets and spend billions in foreign aid and economic development, we also can provide access to one of the most lucrative markets in the world.
ImNotAtAllCreative81@reddit
How bold of you to assume the position of being a spokesperson for over eight billion people.
nonstopflux@reddit
OP is leader of the free world.
misterlakatos@reddit
If that were the case all of us would be doomed.
misterlakatos@reddit
What an idiotic post.
MyUsername2459@reddit
As others have said, it's a reference to the Cold War.
During the Cold War, the world was divided into two factions.
The First World, also known as the Western Bloc, was liberal democracies that supported capitalist economies with a free enterprise system. The most powerful country in this bloc, that was its de facto leader, was the United States.
The Second World, also known as the Eastern Bloc, were totalitarian dictatorships that supported communist economies with centrally planned command economies. The most powerful country in this bloc, and its de facto leader, was the Soviet Union.
(There was also the Third World, meaning countries that weren't affiliated with either bloc, typically less wealthy countries trying to appeal to both blocs trying to get the best economic and military deals from each)
As the US was the de facto leader of the free democratic countries of the world in their struggle against communist dictatorships, the leader of the US was the de facto "leader of the free world", and that informal term was used a lot by the media.
It's not anything to cringe at, it's a reference to the geopolitical state of the world from 1945 to 1991 when the US lead the half of the world's nations that openly believed in freedom and democracy.
KaBar42@reddit
What do you call the single most powerful man in the world who is the head of state of the world's foremost and sole superpower, possessing military strength never before seen in the history of Humanity who happens to aligned with the ideas typically considered to be part of the free world?
"Leader of the Free World" is a 100% accurate descriptor for POTUS.
DrWhoisOverRated@reddit
No one is begging Australia for help in Ukraine, or Palestine, or Venezuela...
evil_burrito@reddit
I don't.
TBH, the president isn't even the leader of the US. Literally, they are the leader of the executive branch. Realistically, they're often more figurehead than anything else.
The_Law_of_Pizza@reddit
It's less serious than you think it is.
But if you want the idea to be gone altogether, then perhaps it's time to start honoring your NATO responsibilities and stop forcing us to shoulder your military burden.
The US has been bankrolling your global security for about 50 years now.
vantablacklist@reddit
Hey let’s not act like we’re not Team America World Policing exactly when and where we want to 95% of the time. In the recent era the wars we’ve fought have brought us immense gain - whether resource access, power or riches through our own military industrial complex - or all three. If we were really arbiters or democracy there’s a list of about 10-15 poor nations we could “help” before Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bluemonogi@reddit
I don’t think of our president as “the leader of the free world”. I think our country is influential on a global level and our president is an important world leader because of that.
zplq7957@reddit
No, absolutely not. Many of us here in the United States do not think we're above anyone else.
captaindomon@reddit
Everyone expects the US to give more than the $55,000,000,000.00+ we have already given Ukraine as security assistance over the last two years, but then “cringe” when we casually admit we seem to be holding the world together because nobody else can.
zugabdu@reddit
It's never been understood to mean that the resident of the United States is the "leader" of say, Australia (where you appear to be from) or has any power over its domestic policies. It originated during the Cold War from the very real fact that the United States had (and has) the largest and most powerful military among Western democracies, and in the event that there were a global war involving the Soviet Union and its allies, the president of the United States would, de facto, be the single most powerful person on that side in that situation.
JudgeWhoOverrules@reddit
When something happens in the world, no one turns towards Belgium to look for leadership and action. For better or worse everyone looks towards United States and and tries to appeal to its president to help.
RDCAIA@reddit
No, we do not think of our president like that. There hasn't been a president in a long time that Americans backed fully and competely. If our entire country is not willing to follow the president wherever he (or she) leads, then why would the whole world do so?
WashuOtaku@reddit
During the Cold War, it was true.
Generally speaking though, everyone from other nations looks towards the United States to see what they will do. While "leader of the free world" is a little grand for this day in age, the U.S. President can be considered a leader in other regards.
liberletric@reddit
You are being too literal about it. We are absolutely the post powerful country in the sphere of liberal democracy.
Tommy_Wisseau_burner@reddit
It’s political jargon but the amount of foreigners who know as much, if not more, about the presidential election than their own election is wild
rawbface@reddit
The president has zero authority over non-americans.
That being said, if you took all the countries that are considered the "free world" or the "western world", and then divided them up by country based on any factor you want - GDP, Military, population , etc - the USA will be the biggest slice of that pie.
machagogo@reddit
It's a Cold War term.
When "First World" meant "Those aligned with the US"
"Second World" meant "Those aligned with USSR"
"Third World" meant "everyone else"
No one thinks the president literally rules the free world.
riarws@reddit
Not Hollywood: https://dgardner.substack.com/p/leader-of-the-free-world
DrGerbal@reddit
It’s a lot of political jargon. Just like greatest nation and such. The vast majority know it’s just that, some phrase used by politicians and such. But yall over there seem to think we all believe it fully. That being said though, America does have a lot of pull in the world
lemongrenade@reddit
We do lead the free world. Often badly but I believe we can do better not less.
badger_on_fire@reddit
Yes, but with some reservations. Right now, the United States is the dominant political, military, economic, and cultural force in the world, and the President is the highest ranking official of the United States. Even though he really only has direct control over two of those four things, he has a very direct impact on the other two.
He's not some kind of god king, and his word alone can't change the world, but I can't think of a single person more capable of influencing change in the world than the President of the United States.
huazzy@reddit
Do I genuinely think of it that way?
No.
Do I believe they are, and will continue to be the most influential (for better or worse) political figure in the world, at the moment and the near future?
Absolutely.
For example. I live in Geneva Switzerland.
A few years ago Biden met Putin in the city. The city, lake, and the airspace was literally shutdown during their meeting and almost every single news outlet was in town to report every movement. I live 5 km from where they met. My street was literally closed off with barb wires and had military presence (including tanks) for days.
Presidents from all over the world come often (Xi Jinping was here years ago as well - I only remember there being helicopters patrolling the air for hours). They rarely get any kind of security, media coverage, or hoopla as the American president.
The Portuguese president was here 3 months ago. My friend's son sang the anthem and met him in person at a school. Likewise I was driving behind a motorcade of 3 motorcycles when one of them asked me to stop to let the car in front of me pull into a hotel. Turns out he was the president of South Africa.
The US Ambassador to Switzerland travels with a larger security detail than 90% of the presidents of the rest of the world.
johnnylawrenceKK@reddit
The current president is not even leading his own nation. But typically yes.
Indifferentchildren@reddit
That line was popular during the Cold War, when the world was divided into: the Free World, the Communist Bloc, and the Third World. Of the countries in the Free World faction, the U.S. was the de facto leader in many ways, especially while The Marshall Plan was helping to rebuild western Europe, and the U.S. was occupying Japan (and helping them rebuild), fighting off the Communists in Korea, etc.
Today, in the absence of a single clear polarization, the term Free World doesn't have much meaning (though there are some distinctly un-free parts of the world). Even if considering the old Free World countries, the U.S. is not doing much leading. It has a huge military, and plays a large role in military alliances such as NATO... if Trump doesn't get re-elected and pull us out of NATO to please his master, Putin.
Scrappy_The_Crow@reddit
In a legal sense? Obviously not.
In the sense that our President is the elected leader of the nation that's arguably the most influential (for good and bad) nation in the world? Yes, many Americans do.
Do some Americans cringe? Yeah, there are a significant number Americans who have out-group preference and/or are "America Bad" types.
Do you cringe because you are embarrassed that your country isn't as influential? Or do you believe America isn't influential and is blustering?
ProfuseMongoose@reddit
Any time I've ever heard it being used is to elicit a sense of responsibility that we have to the rest of the world. That's not a bad thing, we should be thinking of other countries when thinking about our actions.
Joliet-Jake@reddit
Not in a strict ”Our President is your boss” kind of way, but the United States is certainly doing a whole lot of steering for the rest of the free world. Cringe as hard as you want.
AnalogNightsFM@reddit
Does your country’s leader have as much power as that of a US president? If you “cringe so hard” you might consider just how insignificant your country really is on the global stage.
AutoModerator@reddit
Your submission has been automatically removed due to the following reasons:
Questions about breaking news or current events should be asked in other subreddits, such as /r/news. The moderators may choose to create a megathread about ongoing events if it is warranted. If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.