Sometimes people refer to the US President as the leader, other times to the nation itself as the leader. Based on previous discussions we've had, you've said you'd like to see a world with minimal to no government, and you'd like to see the United States lead the charge. As the phrase has never meant ruler but rather leader, as in lead by example, this would mean that if the United States did what you wanted, it would become the leader of the free world. So I don't think you're opposed to the free world having a leader, or even the USA being that leader, or the concept of a free world, you just have a different concept of free and what leadership in that matter would look like.

I guess you're right.  However, I'd note that there is only one definition of free.  So, people would have to say something like "leader of the freer world" to be correct.  

Sometimes people refer to the US President as the leader, other times to the nation itself as the leader. Based on previous discussions we've had, you've said you'd like to see a world with minimal to no government, and you'd like to see the United States lead the charge. As the phrase has never meant ruler but rather leader, as in lead by example, this would mean that if the United States did what you wanted, it would become the leader of the free world. So I don't think you're opposed to the free world having a leader, or even the USA being that leader, or the concept of a free world, you just have a different concept of free and what leadership in that matter would look like.

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

I could see herald. Don't blame me for the English language's confusing way of using certain words to mean lots of similar things. I don't understand what the big deal is with that phrase all of a sudden. What's wrong with having other countries follow our example? What's wrong with other countries being democracies? I don't understand what's so controversial about the phrase unless you're of an anarchist's mindset that the "free" in "free world" isn't free enough or if you're actually in favor of dictatorships.

Edit: Champion, maybe? As in, the country that champions the values of a free world? Like the chief promoter of those ideals? Either way, I don't control how the euphemism was formed or how it's used today. That's just how it is. We could try to start a trend if you want, but otherwise...

Hes the leader of the government, not the people. The executive is the leader. They don’t “rule” like a king though, there are 2 other equal branches of government, the powers were separated but they are all tied down by the limitations in our constitution. Their authority doesn’t exist beyond that document. The importance of our federal government has been highly overplayed for a hundred years with the introduction and beginnings of the progressive left in America. America is largely supposed to be State based governance. State laws can be anything as long as it agrees to basic broad federal rules.

The whole term is anachronistic by now, as we aren't in the cold war period anymore, it's as much a term as "the West" compared to "the East". But since those terms went with the iron curtain, then where do you draw the line? What encompasses the so called free world currently?

Then, obviously I have nothing against democracy, even though there's one or two things to say about your two-party system, which definitely isn't the most democratic way to go.

In any case, that's all nit-picking, I actually don't mind it too much, although I agree that champion sounds more substantial than leader. 

_{Or it should be the Avatar, and spread the virtues all over Britannia the world.}

Firstly, people not liking arrogance is pretty common and really shouldn't come as a shock to anybody.

Secondly, because other countries may have better ideas for how to do things, if they aren't already doing them better. And if we're talking about democratic practices then there's definitely countries that are doing it better (subjective, I know, but surely most people could agree that there are some major flaws in the US democratic process).