Payin' the cost to be the boss

The other day I said "the leader of the free world" had been on television. Since then I've been thinking if perhaps that designation was no longer proper.

When do you think the President of the United States became "the leader of the free world?" Certainly this really can't be from before World War II. People talk about Churchill and Roosevelt in the same way. Often it sounds like Churchill was the bigger wheel. So it must be a cold war thing. The United States did lead the world's free nations during the cold war. So that makes sense.

Does that means that the gig ended with the end of the Cold War?

I think that Reagan clearly fit the bill. He was the leader of the free world. George HW Bush even fits the bill a little. There was a genuine coalition for Gulf War I even if it wasn't the commies that we were fighting. Clinton is a little less clear, but even in his case it did seem like we were moving with a World mandate behind us. Actions in the Balkans, in Somalia, there still seemed to be a consensus in world opinion to back up the effort.

But I also think the luster was fading off the title through that period. Personally I think some of it has to do with the demonizing we saw coming from the Congress and from American media through that phase. My memory isn't a good record here because I haven't been a keen government observer all my life, and in the grand scheme I haven't lived very long, but what I noticed is that the discourse during the Clinton administration became more mean spirited, less respectful of the title even if they didn't respect the man. I guess the rest of the world picked up on that.

George W Bush really doesn't carry the title. Not militarily, not economically, not philosophically. The deep divide in American politics plays itself out on the world stage. I think it is likely that the number of international citizens that might have looked to the President of the United States for leadership in the present is lower than it had been in the past. "You forgot about Poland!" pretty much sums it up.

I wonder who is the leader of the free world now? Is it important that one person wear that hat clearly? Is it worth more compromise at home to provide more of a consensus if it means regaining the mantle of world respect and leadership? Certainly would seem so to me. But what do I know, I build flats for a living.

You know its not that I'm saying that the President of the United States can't be the Leader of the Free World, or even that George W Bush can't. It's just that it feels like we got used to it like both titles came together. If we want to be in that position again, there's some rehabilitation that will need to be done first.