The Leader of the Free World Gives a Speech, and She Nails It | Hacker News Reader

The Leader of the Free World Gives a Speech, and She Nails It

nymag.com

30 pointsfxtentacle28 comments

> Angela Merkel doesn’t do drama and she doesn’t give speeches on TV.

I've seen this reported a few times, and it's always stated and never explained. My question: why doesn't she?

Not "why doesn't she do drama", although digging into her biography would also be interesting. Why doesn't she give speeches on TV?

I suspect some of this is because there's a split between the President and the Chancellor of Germany, but I don't know much about the politics there. Being from America, I don't easily grok the difference between "head of state" and "head of government". I also don't often hear about the German President, making it seem like the Chancellor is more important.

Outside of the New Years speech, German chancellors generally don't do "TV speeches" (I recently saw a number of only 5 other cases where they did: Iraq war, Kosovo war, 2x reunification of Germany, RAF terror). That of course doesn't mean things they say aren't distributed, just that it's unusual as the formal address to the nation. E.g. they can speak in parliament, and we might see that speech or snippets of it distributed. And they do give statements to press.

Not sure how much of a role the split plays, e.g. the President doesn't do it that much either.

For Merkel specifically, she's generally happy to let others do the talking, observe the reactions and then act according to that, in what one could call a fairly passive style.

I have a big issue with the politics of this piece. The whole “leader of the free world” applying to Merkel is media frustration with Trump.

However, it’s not the media (or my) job to apply this label. Rather, it’s earned by the person who most shapes the free world.

By definition, that is not Xi or Putin.

Merkel’s influence compared to any American president is significantly less.

A US President has mush more influence over things like trade, war, and finance than any German leader since 1945.

I say this objectively, regardless of whether I like or hate the person in either office.

Merkel may have nailed the speech, but that is almost tangential to the distorted headline.

I noticed this transition in the media around the time of the summit in Helsiinki. At the time, Trump publicly deferred to Putin and contradicted U.S. intelligence, this event strengthened the narrative that Trump is in some ways subservient or at least sympathetic to Putin's geopolitical agenda, thus violating the definition you emphasized in your comment. "Leader of the free world" is a statement of propaganda no matter who is uttering it about whom, but I think it's fair to argue that Trump's behavior contributed to this result.

I find it quite fascinating that this is a US newspaper using the terminology previously reserved for US presidents like Obama, but deliberately denying it to Trump.

It appears that this didn't get quite as much attention inside Germany as the article makes it to be, but apparently many New Yorkers are now looking outside of the US for guidance.

I guess that's the point. And I mean, Trump appears to have forfeited this role of his own accord, what with all his America First schtick.

Also, it seems that regarding covid the best insights come from China, Korea, Italy or France, not the US.

Forfeited the role? "Leader of the Free World" was just a rhetorical title and not an actual role. Surely the people in other parts of the Free World didn't think of previous Presidents as their leaders.

In my opinion, all this means is that some media outlets liked previous Presidents and don't like Trump. I'm not convinced anything is actually lost because some people don't call the President "Leader of the Free World."

For the good part of a century, especially after World Wars, the US president has always been considered the _Leader of the Free World_ without having to be an actual ruler of the world.

When US presidents traveled abroad, they were treated as such by great international leaders and their citizens. Even in nations where all concerned were aware of their shortcomings in the _freedom_ area, the US President as the _Leader of the Free World_ was in their vocabulary. With or without envy or admiration.

Up to and including Obama.

I noticed it was over the way they laugh at Trump.

The role really wasn't his to forfeit, partly because it was rhetorical and largely unearned to begin with.

Most previous Presidents didn't rightfully earn the role either, most kind of inherited it by default.

Trump is just the first one to fail bad enough for his underachievement to fall below the default level.

Claiming that it's the media that doesn't like Trump is so wrong. Let's be clear here, a leader should be a clear communicator and if your medium is Twitter and you look at Trump's... Well, should be enough to prove my point.

Coming from Europe, I can only attest the other comment here.

But Trump is most definitely not a worthy president, I doubt the current partnerships would survive another term of Trump.

I wrote that some media doesn't like Trump, and I think that's fairly obviously true. Are you suggesting that all media outlets do like him?

"Leader of the Free World" is just something that American media, and perhaps other media outlets, use. They chose to start using it, to contrast the "Free World" with the enslaved world of the USSR and sundry. Some media outlets have chosen to stop using the term to refer to Trump, but that is purely an expression of their estimation of Trump, it's not an actual role or title lost.

Since you come from Europe, I'm curious to know, did you consider George Bush your leader? Do you consider yourself part of the Free World?

Yes, George Bush was also.

All of the previous presidents knew the strength of partnerships.

Although "i'm coming from Europe", I think my POV is pretty objective. But I will defend that opinion.

I'm part of the Western world and the Western world is currently the most free from all of them.

Ps. I'm not referencing the past, we did harsh things in the "distant past" ( relatively).

Considering that the EU doesn't even have freedom of speech, calling that the free world is quite the stretch.

Neither does the US.

Definitely, I didn't mention the US at all, but at least the US doesn't have blasphemy laws, for example.

> at least the US doesn't have blasphemy laws, for example

True. And yet despite that, Christianity seems to be a litmus test for being President in the US.

But they don't have civil forfeiture, they have a less tyrannical justice system, they have fewer incarcerated people per capita, so there's that.

Americans claim they are free, but only if they contort the definition. There's more to freedom than guns and free speech.

A more tyrannical justice system and more incarcerated people are not necessarily bad per se. Remember that the US is vastly more heterogeneous which translates into more crime. Keeping criminals in prison is freedom--freedom to own a store and not being robbed, for instance.

Not sure how common civil forfeiture is, I'm not American, but it sounds quite fishy indeed. As I said below, I didn't mention the US at all...

Its a fair point, I'm just pointing out the fact that freedom is in the eye of the collective beholder.

You really think that the freedom to organize a neonazi cell is more important than the freedom not to be robbed at gun point by the police?

> Keeping criminals in prison is freedom--freedom to own a store and not being robbed, for instance.

I think when people mention the high incarceration rate in the U.S., they're usually bemoaning not the armed robbers, but those that are incarcerated for three-strikes laws, recreational drug use, non-violent recidivism, and those unconvicted but unable to afford bail.

> Remember that the US is vastly more heterogeneous which translates into more crime

Care to substantiate that claim?

Care to debunk it?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or in your case, any. It's on you to prove it not vise versa.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43552152?seq=1

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227283604_Populatio...

I'm not sure that incarceration (and the circumstances under which it usually happens) in the US is increasing the "freedom". See i.e. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtV5ev6813I

Reply on news.ycombinator.com