Ka-pi96 said:
Oxymoron much? A free world wouldn't have a "leader". |
I get what you're saying, but the phrase has always meant "lead by example" rather than "rule". It's the leader of the free world, not the ruler of the free world. Of course, it's always been a euphemism. For example, it's always been understood to mean the part of the world governed by democracies that respect human rights, when all of its members have had issues from time to time, and also, if a "free nation" decided democratically that certain groups didn't deserve human rights, it wouldn't be looked at as part of the free world, because part of the implication of "free world" is of an understanding based on the idea that not only is the country's leaders "freely and democratically elected" but also that all of its citizens have equally free access to the system and the rights it provides. That said, I've always seen "supporting" the free world as supporting the concept of free democracies and human rights, even if they don't always perfectly practice it, and being the "leader" of the free world as leading by example as the best working example of the concept of a free democracy that respects human rights. Through periods throughout the USA's history, I think it met that criteria, but not anymore.
