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...
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.