Leader of the free world

Watching Homeland last night, the US president was twice referred to as the "leader of the free world". It's not the first time that I've encountered this phrase, so it made me wonder: do Americans genuinely believe that? Although he's the leader of the most powerful economy in the supposed free world, that doesn't make him the leader of every other nation. I'm sure the French would have something to say about it for starters.

I'll admit that Tony Blair's frankly sickening obeisance towards GWB probably made most people assume that the UK is indeed the 51st state, but I certainly don't recall ever getting to vote on your prez.

I most ferverently hope not. As far as I'm concerned, that phrase is nothing more than media hyperbole which panders to the weak egoed minority that believe everyone should follow where ever we lead.

Now you know how we feel when the United Nations effectively declare themselves as a 'world government'...

Doesn't France exist for US entertainment purposes, though? What they 'have to say' about anything brings out a big bucket of popcorn...

Seriously, though, entertainment industries (aka Hollywood and the modern media) do center on their market audience: why is it that aliens always visit the US in American movies, Tokyo in Japanese movies, and Big Ben in British movies?

I was going to point out how the U.S. has had to clean up (and often fail at cleaning up) mess after mess that was started by somebody else. U.K. and the Middle East, France and Indo-China, etc.

But why bother, that just stirs up too much crap and it isn't as if the U.S. has squeaky clean hands anyway when you look at Central and South America.

The "leader" bit was something that came out of the Cold War though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

I was going to point out how the U.S. has had to clean up (and often fail at cleaning up) mess after mess that was started by somebody else. U.K. and the Middle East, France and Indo-China, etc.

---

Why did they have to do it?

It seems that democracy allows you choice in everything except type of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

Why did they have to do it?

---

I assume the usual, pressure from those in a position to buy influence who had financial or power stakes in the regions and the fights.

War profiteers, oil and mineral exploiters, agricorps, religious regimes, imperialists, ... the usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

I was going to point out how the U.S. has had to clean up (and often fail at cleaning up) mess after mess that was started by somebody else. U.K. and the Middle East, France and Indo-China, etc.

But why bother, that just stirs up too much crap and it isn't as if the U.S. has squeaky clean hands anyway when you look at Central and South America.

The "leader" bit was something that came out of the Cold War though.

---

No great empire ever became without interfering in foreign affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

I assume the usual, pressure from those in a position to buy influence who had financial or power stakes in the regions and the fights.

War profiteers, oil and mineral exploiters, agricorps, religious regimes, imperialists, ... the usual.

---

Right. Mostly nothing to do with actual freedom or notions of altruism.

There were aspects of that, though they were often misguided. The actions taken are often the result of the various tuggings on a whole bunch of different strings.

In most cases that seems like an excuse, or a perk at best. There are dozens of other places, even now, where an involvement might be considered altruistic, but it only happens in places, and at certain points in time, when there are special interest groups that benefit from it (or would be hurt by the lack of it).

I don't have a problem with the phrase "Leader of the Free World" and think it's actually pretty accurate. (And it's probably worth mentioning up front that I'm a Brit, just in case any non-regulars think I'm an overly zealous US patriot).

Don't forget, the phrase is Leader of the free world, not Ruler. Ruler's are elected and doing what they say is mandatory (or at least legally enofrcable). Leaders aren't elected and we follow them only because we want to. In that context referring to the US President as the Leader of the Free World puts far more responsibility on the president than it does on non US citizens.

As the ruler of by far the largest economy and military in the world we expect the US president to set a good example in international affairs. And when they fail to do so we all become understandably nervous. I think the rest of the world probably does hold the US up to a higher standard than it does other countries because we view the US as the leading nation in the world.

That doesn't mean we're governed by the US or that we will do everything the US says. Neither will we blindly adopt US cultural norms while droppiong our own. But, let's be honest, we do tend to follow the US's lead on international affairs and if you buy a pizza anywhere in the world it's far more likely to be an American style one than an Italian style one.

Obama's not even a leader of our nation. At least not a very good one.

How can it be a free world if we pay for everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightwalker83

How can it be a free world if we pay for everything?

---

:bigyello:
Lol...

Air is still free here. Our Republican governor hasn't figured out how to tax us for that yet so he can lower business taxes yet again for his cronies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Air is still free here. Our Republican governor hasn't figured out how to tax us for that yet so he can lower business taxes yet again for his cronies.

---

And I thought you were smart. Such a shame...

What? The jerk we have raised my income taxes by $2400 over last year. Typical tax and give it to his buddies Republican.

The word "free" is often misused in our constitution, history books, laws, etc. By free, they mean you can do whatever you want, except for everything we don't want you to do.

Things I am not "free" to do would be; Walk around naked, walk around with a gun in public, live in Miami with a pitbull, I am not allowed to put my gas cap in the pump handle for automatic pumping, I can only have my sprinklers on once a week, I can't drink alcohol in full nude strip clubs, I can't park my boat in my front yard, at age 18-20 I can die for my county but cannot drink legally in it, I can not own a tiger freely, etc..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

What? The jerk we have raised my income taxes by $2400 over last year. Typical tax and give it to his buddies Republican.

---

Hmm. So you are against taking money from one person and giving it to someone else you believe is undeserving?

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Hmm. So you are against taking money from one person and giving it to someone else you believe is undeserving?

Interesting.

---

Rather than just talking past the issue, why don't you explain yourself. Patronizing insinuations are the bane of the internet. You haven't really said anything, but dilletant assumed, as did I, that you meant something along the lines of, "I disagree with your political view, but rather than stating what I believe, I will just make a slightly arch comment suggesting that your view is inferior, and further suggesting that the comment is a reflection on the commentor."

I tend to agree with the latter part, and if you do, as well, then you should be concerned that your statement sounded patronizing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I tend to agree with the latter part, and if you do, as well, then you should be concerned that your statement sounded patronizing.

---

Because the original comment was ignorant, partisan, divisive and insulting, and deserves no less than patronizing commentary. Those that make such statements tend to have little interest in reason. Of course, it could be ignored, but where's the fun in that?

There is enough unintelligent and uninspired commentary on the internet. Nobody HAS to listen to anybody else, but there is always a chance that somebody, in some fit of insanity, just might. For that reason, it is worthwhile to avoid the easy, dismissive, comment and make your case in earnest. If you don't strive to bring people around, and risk the chance that it will be you that is brought around, then you opt for the status quo and discount the possibility of improvement.

After all, how do you know the original comment was ignorant or divisive? It was certainly partisan, since it mentioned the party of the governor, and it may well have been insulting (though it may also have been true), but as to ignorant or divisive, I can't say, and you probably can't either, unless you know who we are talking about (which I certainly don't). All we get from your statement is that you disagree, presumably (though, technically, you could also be insane, but that's an edge case), and in disagreeing, you dismiss the body of the post solely by dismissing the very intelligence of the poster while not disputing any single point that was made. That argument can ALWAYS be made. If we just assume that everybody who disagrees with us is too stupid to be heard, life becomes considerably simpler...and everyone around us moves slowly away.

We might as well attempt to elevate the level of discourse rather than by dismissing others as stupid, serve only to prove that we are.

I think the original question answered itself at the part about hearing that phrase on a tv show.

It was meant as more of a comment that politicians of all stripes "take" quite a bit from us.

And yes, with a pre-emptive strike (based on fact) against anticipated remarks that Democrats are the bad guys when it comes to taxation. If there wasn't such a widely spouted fiction circulating that Republicans are an "anti tax" choice the issue wouldn't even exist.

You can't fully trust any politician, even one you might think you have bought and paid for.

Quote:

---

You can't fully trust any politician, even one you might think you have bought and paid for.

---

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by namrekka

:bigyello:
Lol...

---

And not just in terms of monetary value either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

What? The jerk we have raised my income taxes by $2400 over last year. Typical tax and give it to his buddies Republican.

---

California's economy is terrible. If you're not forced to live here, count your lucky stars.

If Obama listed his favorite state governors, Jerry Brown would probably be on that list. Maybe somewhere at the top.

I haven't actually spent any time in California, and I know more about the Greek economy that Californian economy (which I find kind of weird), but I was under the impression that Jerry Brown was elected after the Californian economy had already gone TU. While you didn't actually say that you blame Jerry Brown for the current situation, it would be in keeping with your previously stated political views. If you blame him for a mess that started well before he was elected, you must be blaming him for still being in the mess now. If you are blaming him for still being in the mess, that would suggest that you believe that a different person would have been able to put the state in a noticeably better state. Who would that person be, and what magic do they have that would accomplish that feat? Or have I misunderstood your position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

It was meant as more of a comment that politicians of all stripes "take" quite a bit from us.

And yes, with a pre-emptive strike (based on fact) against anticipated remarks that Democrats are the bad guys when it comes to taxation. If there wasn't such a widely spouted fiction circulating that Republicans are an "anti tax" choice the issue wouldn't even exist.

You can't fully trust any politician, even one you might think you have bought and paid for.

---

Ah, but you didn't say that...;)

When it comes to politics, one is judged by what one says and does in isolation, regardless of what has gone before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I haven't actually spent any time in California, and I know more about the Greek economy that Californian economy (which I find kind of weird), but I was under the impression that Jerry Brown was elected after the Californian economy had already gone TU. While you didn't actually say that you blame Jerry Brown for the current situation, it would be in keeping with your previously stated political views. If you blame him for a mess that started well before he was elected, you must be blaming him for still being in the mess now. If you are blaming him for still being in the mess, that would suggest that you believe that a different person would have been able to put the state in a noticeably better state. Who would that person be, and what magic do they have that would accomplish that feat? Or have I misunderstood your position?

---

I don't really follow California politics enough to come to a conclusion as to who would be a better governor or to know if the mess is any bigger than it was before he was elected governor. But I do know the ideology I'd want the governor to have.

Am I offending anyone here? Because I can stop talking politics.

I'm not sure that such an ambiguous statement could offend anybody. Though your politics are somewhat clear (you surely like polls, anyways, and tend to keep them ticking), you didn't really state a position.

What I find interesting about Jerry Brown is that this is Jerry Brown 2.0, and Jerry Brown 2.0 is a whole lot different from Governor MoonBeam.