The Free World Lacks A Leader

In 1988, the free world stood at the precipice of victory. The Berlin Wall would fall a year later, and not long afterwards the Soviet Union would as well. China had marched halfway down the path towards capitalism, democratization was epidemic, and the dogmas of liberty and prosperity appeared immutable. Despite uncertainty, optimism reigned.

In the US presidential election that year, when presented with the chance to move beyond the foundational ideas that seemed so triumphant, neither candidate did. They steered clear of a shortsighted and self-serving agenda—replete with isolationism, international apathy, and withdrawal from world affairs—that might have benefited the nation during their term, but would have undermined the global march of democracy.

In fact, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush made these values the hallmark of his campaign. In his RNC acceptance speech that year, he declared, “this election is about the beliefs we share, the values that we honor and the principles we hold dear.” The American project, he suggested, was not a quest to spoil its electorate, but a relentless pursuit to further the nation’s founding principles.

In the 36 years since, however, the United States has lost this guiding spirit. A fierce resolve for liberty and equality backed by economic and military force is what made the American president the leader of the free world. Although this misguidedness of value predates him, Donald Trump and his reelection mark a firm abdication of this role. With his willingness to weaponize tariffs against our closest allies, to withdraw from NATO while a Russian war of conquest saddles the European continent, and to sow doubt regarding democratic election results, Trump certainly does not view the end of this election as furthering the same principles Bush once held dear. Instead, in an age of authoritarian ascension and international instability, Trump is abandoning the free world to pursue the self-serving agenda so staunchly repudiated in 1988.

The question lingers whether another Western leader will step up to claim the throne Trump refuses to claim. Perhaps a European or Pacific ally might fill in the gap, champion the free exchange of ideas and goods, and resist transactional international cooperation. Perhaps they will lead the charge against Russia, fighting for the values of the free world and those values alone.

Currently, though, it seems that no potential candidate would be able to fit into said throne. The governing party of French President Emmanuel Macron, who has tried asserting himself as the European leader on military independence, came in third in this summer’s elections behind coalitions on the far left and right, rendering the centrist leader politically impotent. The party of his two-time, staunchly rightist rival, Marine Le Pen, won a strong plurality in the European Parliament this summer, which will further limit the outward-looking Macron’s international ambitions. Le Pen and her allies seem set on imitating Trump’s anti-immigration, unabashedly nationalist policies, and are currently favored to succeed Macron in the upcoming presidential election in 2027. Until then, unless something drastic happens, Macron will remain a lame duck in the coming years.

Similarly, few would make the mistake of giving that title to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, even though his predecessor Angela Merkel was dubbed by some the “leader of the free world” during Trump’s first term. Currently presiding over a disintegrating three-party coalition, Scholz is limping into next March’s federal elections—elections he is widely expected to lose—fettered by deep-set economic woes his coalition has been unable to mend. Used to exploiting the comforting wing of the United States to avoid deficit spending, Germany risks exposing itself by failing to invest in its defense industry and ceding its place as the economic engine of Europe. Scholz, like Macron, is also occupied fending off the far right Alternative für Deutschland, another party on the rise that will undoubtedly be encouraged by Trump’s second victory.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has the strongest claim to the crown, but he appears too timid to plan his own coronation. A pragmatic yet cautious bureaucrat who led his Labour Party to a historic victory this July, Starmer is engrossed in the challenge of catching up Britain’s stagnating economy to those of its neighbors. The prime minister championed an almost entirely domestic-oriented agenda, and deviating from his campaign promises to focus on foreign affairs would betray the voters that delivered his party to a 400-seat parliamentary victory. Plus, Brexit and years of Tory governance have strained Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Starmer would be foolish to believe that he could influence Europe after his nation voted to leave it.

Giorgia Meloni of Italy, Pedro Sánchez of Spain, Anthony Albanese of Australia—all might be good candidates, if their economies were stronger or their populations larger. Ursula von der Leyen, the executive leader of the European Union, has seen her prominence grow in recent years, especially as the de facto European envoy to Ukraine. In fact, she has visited eight times, more than any other world leader. Yet, although von der Leyen stands for the values Bush would find admirable, the EU currently serves as little more than an economic regulator and proposer of policy for its member states. Should European nations find it favorable to cede more powers to Brussels—which is unlikely in the near future given the surge of the populist right across the continent—von der Leyen could become a novel kingmaker on the international stage. For the time being, though, her photoshoots in Kyiv remain among the most impactful actions she has pursued.

In 2024, a year in which more individuals around the world voted than ever before, global shifts in power and ideology were virtually guaranteed. Long-standing governments were toppled, upsets shocked international observers, and alliances have been disrupted. Yet, what makes 2024 different from 1988—which saw similar winds of change—is that there is no clear authority to conduct the orchestra of democracy. Undoubtedly, the free world still stands, and will for some time. To prevent it from declining to obscurity, however, a leader needs to stand up and fight for the principles that make it so precious.

Although Joe Biden’s presidency marked a firm recommitment to the duties and values of the United States on the international stage, perhaps the outbreak of war across the world—from Ukraine and Israel to recent developments in Syria—might signal the end of Pax Americana. Just as the United States stepped up in the wake of Britain’s post-WWII economic collapse to govern the waves, perhaps another nation will emerge to take the baton from the Americans. The twentieth century is colloquially known as the American Century, but with its shift in attitude and leadership, it seems that the United States wants to abandon the twenty-first.

Time will tell whether another leader will emerge, or whether the United States will defy expectations and once again carve its name into this century as well. It is certain, though, that the Western world inches further from victory, deeper into inundating pessimism. With the rise of a reactionary right, isolationism, and political shortsightedness, darkness threatens the liberally flowing optimism that forms the cornerstone of the free world.

It is this very optimism that drives the free world forward, even through the darkest moments and toughest internal challenges. By keeping its foundational values close at heart, the free world can once again serve as a beacon of hope in tumultuous times. It can eventually become, as Bush coined in the same speech, “a thousand points of light.”