Is the American President the leader of the free world?

I was intrigued by a recent article by Carlos Lozade in The New York Times: America Has Become a Dangerous Nation. The opening paragraph sets the stage.

We had a good run — some eight decades or so — but it is clear by now that the United States has ceased to be the leader of the free world. A successor for that post has not been named, and it appears unlikely that the European Union, or NATO, or whatever constitutes “the West” these days will promote from within. The job might even be eliminated, one more reduction in force courtesy of President Trump.

Here's the problem. I'm a Canadian. I think Canada is part of the "free world" but it's not a term that Canadians use very often. I also don't think it's popular in European countries but I'd like to hear from Europeans. Do the people of France think of themselves as being part of the "free world" (using the French translation)?

I remember the 1960s when the United States was bogged down in Vietnam and I don't recall thinking of either Johnson or Nixon as any kind of a leader of Canada or of similar countries such as Sweden, Australia, or Switzerland, let alone Japan or South Korea.

Ronald Reagan may have been a good President for Americans but I never thought of him as the leader of the free world in spite of the fact that Americans give him credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union. He would not have been a very good leader in Canada.

I think Canadians have enjoyed freedom for a very long time and so have many countries in Europe and elsewhere. We don't owe that freedom to the United States and we don't look to the United States as the standard of freedom. If that's what it means to be the leader of the "free" world then it's a term that doesn't resonate outside of the USA.

The Lozade article implies that the President of the United States has been the de facto leader of the free world for eight decades and it's only in the past year or so that he has lost that title. That's an interesting claim. It suggests that Canadians, Australians, Swedes, etc. looked upon George W. Bush as some kind of leader when American invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

To my way of thinking, leaders are those who improve the lives of their citizens by promoting universal health care, income equality, the rights of women and minorities, and safety & securtity (i.e. crime and gun control). I admire world leaders who promote those values. I don't look to American Presidents as world leaders from that perspective.

I think the view of Americans is that military might is the important criterion. Since the United States is the toughest kid in school then it is the de facto leader since nobody wants to be on their bad side. Americans assume that their country always uses that military might for the good of the free world and that's they think that for the past eight decades the people of New Zealand, Mexico, and India might have looked to the President as the leader of the free world.

I'd like to suggest that viewing the President of the United States as the leader of the free world is mostly an American myth that's not shared by people in other countries to any great extent. America is the most powerful country in NATO and and so it dominates military considerations within that alliance. I think that Americans view NATO as the "free world" when they use that expression.

I view the United States as a powerful partner in NATO but I think of NATO as an alliance where every country is important. I don't see America as the "leader" in NATO any more than I see Canada as the leader. What do you think?

I'd especially like to hear from non-Americans about whether they have always viewed the President of the United States as the leader of the free world.

---