Is America the leader of the Free world or not?

I was listening to Neal Boortz this morning, and he was talking about Obama's speech in Berlin. He focused on a sound bite of him saying

"We are the ones we have been waiting for"

Also there was a quote where Obama was addressing "The World"


Neal called Obama out for this saying "What president is he running for? Emperor of the world? Who wants someone who thinks of the world first and America second?"

Several things really get me about this.

1. I thought America WAS the leader of the world. So it makes sense for Obama to address the world. Don't we always refer to the President of America as "Leader of the Free World"? If so then how a candidate handles that position is critical.

2. Our world economies are very interdependent now. We have a global economy. So what America does, effects the rest of the world, which makes sense for a Presidential candidate to address "the world".

3. The fact that Obama speaks like this doesn't give me pause as it does Neal, but it makes me motivated to vote for him even MORE.


I think Neal was way off base. Especially given that the President of the United states is viewed patrioticaly as "The Leader of the Free World".



[edit on 4-8-2008 by Quazga]

To start with the free world was probably a concept of some think tank there is no free world.I have never heard the american president is the leader of the free world except in america.The constitution is what protects your freedom.Both McCain and Obama have sworn oaths to protect it and both have betrayed thier oaths as has Bush,Pelosi and most others so exactly where is this free world?

reply to post by Quazga


I think at one point in History, the majority of the world would agree upon the fact that America was the leader or figure head of the free world. I am afraid it is not so anymore. I think that in Obama''s attempt to come off as someone who will undo all what Bush screwed up (don't get me wrong, I am an Obama supporter), he thinks that he can reverse the global view on the United States. I am afraid it will take much more than words to do that. We used to think the States was a symbol of freedom because they were, well, free, but more so, because they had the military might to free other countries from the "non free" oppressions that existed.

Because of the War in the middle east, and how people say it is not about actually securing the fragile lives if middle easterners, but more for the hidden political agendas of American Politicians, and not to mention the mass amount of Epic Fail that can be seen in the War, the image of a "Freedom ensuring" America has fallen through in most places of the world. People are getting a hold of what is happening in America, about the new bills being passed, conspiracy, and an overall disappointment in the subtly-becoming oppressive American government, and they don't see America as free and glorious as it once was. It can be said that as of current, the American Constitution is not "enabled" and hasn't been since world war two, which would mean that American citizens lack those rights. I do not know if this is true or not.

What I do know is that when I think of the free world, I think of places like France, Australia and Japan, and even Canada. Here in Canada, our Charter of Rights is still active, and will continue to be for a long time.

However, finding a leader of the free world? Thats a tough one. I'm sad to say that America is not that anymore, and the position is open. I have a feeling the EU is going to try and grab it.

Thought provoking question.

I was thinking about this with the recent McCain Ads that seem to be saying that being liked by the world at large is a bad thing. That somehow drawing crowds in Berlin is a slam against him.

In truth I don't think Obama's "celebrity" is a bad thing. I use the qoutes becasue I don't think he is a celebrity in the sense of the word the word that the McCain camp implies. We need a Potus who has credibility and status around the world. It is no secret that very few world leaders take our current president seriously anymore and it has cost us.

Leader of the Free World? Once upon a time maybe and possibly in the future, but certainly not now. I am just looking forward to the day where the world takes us seriously again.

reply to post by maybereal11


I agree whole heartedly.


What is funny to me is that the First Lady of France, once left Eric Clapton for Mick Jagger, openly says she has had over 50 lovers, and yet Sarkozy is taken more seriously than many world leaders.

reply to post by Quazga


I know it is a dangerous sentiment to express, but I do feel that Obama's race is a benefit in world affairs. Electing a POTUS of color for the first time in US history would in some ways tell the world that we genuinely believe in the ideals of equality that we have been preaching for over a century now, rather than just lip service and hypocracy. Again...credibility with the world to do the things we must do.

I will qualify that statement by saying that if McCain was a better candidate I would vote for him without hesitation and keep hoping for a appropriately qualified woman/minority to arrive in future years. Substance over appearances, but if Obama gets the job, it will serve the USA from a PR perspective.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Thought provoking question.

We need a Potus who has credibility and status around the world.

This maybe so however he also needs credibility here first and that can not be gotten by swearing an oath then disregaurding that oath.Nor can you be a leader if the government has no credibility.The american government is controled by corporations and bankers who care nothing about credibility.If the president loses credibility as Bush has it makes no difference as he will be replaced by the next corporate politician who will again lose credibility in time to be replaced by the next.The cycle will go forward until enough people wakeup or the country colapses.The cycle was made possible in 1913 when Wilson took the country off the gold standard.The only way to restore credibility to this country is to return to constitutional values and return the power to the people to whom it rightly belongs.Until that time the free world does not exhist here.


I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.James Madison

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by Quazga
I was listening to Neal Boortz this morning, and he was talking about Obama's speech in Berlin. He focused on a sound bite of him saying

"We are the ones we have been waiting for"

That quote wasn't from the Berlin Speech. It's from his Super Tuesday speech on Feb 6...

Also there was a quote where Obama was addressing "The World"

Yes, he was addressing the world with that speech. The world was listening. That's not to say he thinks of the world first and America second. If I'm talking to a room full of people and my husband is one of them, that doesn't make the room of people more important to me than my husband. THat's just silly.

1. I thought America WAS the leader of the world. So it makes sense for Obama to address the world. Don't we always refer to the President of America as "Leader of the Free World"? If so then how a candidate handles that position is critical.

It depends how people define "leader of the free world". The US has historically held a lot of power and influence and received respect from the rest of the world. So, it's the natural leader of the countries. Recently, this position has been petered away and I don't see us in that position any more. Our economy is faltering, without standing behind Israel's apron, we are losing power and we have all but lost the respect other countries once had for us.

3. The fact that Obama speaks like this doesn't give me pause as it does Neal, but it makes me motivated to vote for him even MORE.

If Obama keeps going in the current direction and becomes president, I believe our country could save face and become strong and influential and worthy of respect from other countries, so yeah, I', quite motivated to vote for him.

I think Neal was way off base, too.

reply to post by pooty


I agree with some of what you are saying, but I guess I have less of a hopeless view on our government. Yes there is corruption, the influence of wealthy power brokers, the military-industrial complex etc. and yes, Obama is not a white knight that will undo all things bad in US Government, but I think there is a very good chance he will try hard to change things and if he doesn't he will be held mercilously to the fire given his campaign platform. Geez..If McCain gets elected and it is business as usual in Washington he could smile and say "hey, what did you expect?" and he'd be right. No one would blink an eye.

So on my most pessismistic days, Obama is still my bet.

As long as there are people that care enough to educate themselves on the issues and debate passionately, like here on ATS, and take politicians to task when they stray then in my mind there is still reason to hope for our government.

In my view we are the leader of the world and everyone else is aiming to knock us out. it isn't any different than a sport competition or the old days when England, France, and Spain were fighting each other for world dominance.

Do you really think the EU is trying to become stronger just because they want to be good neighbors and have free trade with each other?


Once the EU gets their ducks in a row and become a powerful force you can bet that the EU will use those 27 countries to lessen the power of the United States. Just imagine the EU placing an embargo against the US because of an action we take that they dislike.

Do you ever notice that is the same counties in the United Nations are giving warning after warning after warning to countries that the UN has sanctioned against despite the authorization to use force if those counties don't adhere to UN sanctions?

It is a deliberate step they take because they know that sooner or later the US will take action by itself. Once the US does, they attack us for doing their job and the whole world sees us as bad guys. Mission accomplished we look like bullies for doing what the UN says should be done if sanctions are not followed.


Have you notice how Russia and China are becoming buddy buddy?

Need I say what these two are up to.

Obama can talk all about gaining the world's respect again and having everybody love us etc etc., it isn't going to happen. They have their agenda and it is to knock us off the top. They may play the role and give the illusion that they love the United States, but in the end they want to see us go down like the Titantic.

As far as McCain, well the world will at least be showing their true color. Their desire to reclaim number 1. They won't like us.

I am not talking about the people of the world I am talking about the governments. You have to remember that many people's thoughts are controlled by their government.

If the world is free it has no need of leaders.

That is part of our problem. We tend to think the rest of the world needs to be led as opposed to considering our neighbors as equals, and when they do turn to us as leaders, as often as not we behave in an obstructionist manner than anything else. Global warming issues being a prime example.

reply to post by jam321


Wouldn't it be great if we had such an amazing and charismatic leader that it was OUR government which controlled their thoughts?

Just sayin...

:-)

free world "HaHaHaHa" . . . sorry but that's just too funny. America is the land of glorified indentured servants. Nothing more.

reply to post by Quazga


Sounds nice but I prefer people control their own thoughts and demand that their government do what is right for its people and not what is right for the people who control the world with money, power, and greed.

reply to post by maybereal11

I know it is a dangerous sentiment to express, but I do feel that Obama's race is a benefit in world affairs. Electing a POTUS of color for the first time in US history would in some ways tell the world that we genuinely believe in the ideals of equality that we have been preaching for over a century now, rather than just lip service and hypocracy. Again...credibility with the world to do the things we must do.

That's fine, but no mistake it is racist. Just admit you're being hypocritical.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by maybereal11

 

I know it is a dangerous sentiment to express, but I do feel that Obama's race is a benefit in world affairs. Electing a POTUS of color for the first time in US history would in some ways tell the world that we genuinely believe in the ideals of equality that we have been preaching for over a century now, rather than just lip service and hypocracy. Again...credibility with the world to do the things we must do.

That's fine, but no mistake it is racist. Just admit you're being hypocritical.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Dronetek]

Not sure what you are saying?
Did you read my entire post or just that paragraph you qouted?
If you are calling me hypocritical..then please explain.

I said for a nation that in rhetoric champions equality, electing a Minority or Woman would help to mute well founded accusations of hypocracy given that we have had a long unbroken sucession of wealthy white men elected as POTUS for the last 200 years. Dramatically dissproportioante to either the US's female or minority populations.

AND I qualified that argument by saying that having a minority or woman elected POTUS is only an added benefit IF the candidate is also the best qualified for POTUS. The best qualified candidate regardles of gender or race must always be elected.

But I suspect you will qoute only part of this and go ahead and try and "make hay" out of this comment as well.