This is an expression with a long history. It first emerged in the Second World War, when American and British propaganda proclaimed that the conflict was a grand struggle between the 'free world' and the tyranny of Nazism. This did rather gloss over the fact that the largest contribution to defeating Nazi Germany was the USSR, a totalitarian dictatorship, led by a paranoid megalomaniac. In a fairer world, someone at the time would have pointed out the similarities between Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler...
But, as the victorious Allies looked down on the ruins of the conquered Nazi state, the expression lingered. Within a few years, it became obvious that the Soviet promises of open and fair elections in Central and Eastern Europe were worthless. By 1949, the countries of Western Europe and North America had created a military alliance, NATO, to oppose Soviet expansionism. But the world was much bigger than the North Atlantic, and so the 'free world' became shorthand for US allies. And, by virtue of his position as the elected head of state in the USA, the President of the United States became known as the Leader of the Free World.
To push the claim of the United States to take global leadership in opposition to the communist bloc, the phrase was heavily used in American foreign policy rhetoric. The American allies who fought in Vietnam were even grouped together as the 'Free World Military Forces.'
And in a way, it made sense. The lives of those behind the Iron Curtain, or in the People's Republic of China, were demonstrably less free than those in, say, the UK, the USA or France. They lacked the freedom of expression, freedom of political organisation, freedom of religious belief, and freedom based around impartial justice, than many took for granted.
Awkwardly, though, the Free World often contained many countries that were not free. Military dictatorships, strongman democracies, and various illiberal regimes were often counted amongst the Free World. But at face value, it was a vaguely useful way of dividing the world.
But then suddenly the distinction became irrelevant. In a short, two year period, the entire apparatus of communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union spectacularly collapsed. Years of repression and economic stagnation sunk the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. In China, it only clung on because of the regime's willingness to use brute force to crush the opposition. When Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union, on Christmas Day 1991, it seemed as if the whole world was free.
At this point, the use of the rhetoric dropped off sharply. Partly this was because of the fact that, if we were all democracies now, and history had indeed ended, as Francis Fukuyama confidently proclaimed, then there was no need to distinguish between the free and unfree world. We were all free. Also, the expression 'Leader of the Free World' had been adopted by elements of the anti-capitalist left, and was used as a term of scorn and derision against the United States. Far better to drop it.
As a replacement, we hear far more about the 'international community,' or 'the West.' Bland expressions, designed to convey a sense of a united world, and to take the edge off of America's claim to lead that bloc of countries.
But the term has survived. A quick check on Google Trends shows a spike in interest in November 2008, when Barack Obama was elected to the US Presidency. But that jump is nothing compared to the number of people who Googled it last November, when Donald Trump was coming in to office.
For if there was ever anyone unqualified to be described as the Leader of the Free World, it is Donald Trump. The United States, for better or for worse, is the sole global superpower. It is the most influential country in the Western world, both in terms of hard power and soft power.
But Trump isn't fit to be the Leader of the Free World, as he openly flouts the values it used to claim to stand for. That's fine. He isn't interested in it anyway. 'America First' is his battle cry. He doesn't really care about the rest of the planet.
All the hand wringing from politicians, and the return of the phrase, seem to be more of a realisation that the United States is retreating from its active role in the world. The last time that happened, the planet was plunged into a world war. But that doesn't justify the return of a misleading phrase, to describe a job that the President of the USA doesn't really have.
The final words go to Neil Young. If this is the 'free world,' then it needs an awful lot of work:
