Reading Response for April 1

In Mystery and Meaning: Ambiguity and the Perception of Leaders, Heroes and Villains by Goethals and Allison, I was stuck by the cues society uses to evaluate or judge leaders. This reading articulates that there are four cues: language, voice, appearance, and movement. This was very telling because many of us try to determine a person’s inner character by their visual appearance. Their mention of the 1960 U.S. Presidential debate with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon exemplifies this. We looked at and studied this debate in Dr. Hoyt’s LDST 101 section. At the time, I was very intrigued by people’s judgement of each candidate through either the radio or the TV. If one was listening on the radio, one would think that Nixon won. However, if one was watching it live then it appeared that Kennedy won. Goethals and Allison explain that Kennedy’s success in the TV medium form of the debate was not due to his young or charming looks. Rather, they argued it was “the dynamism and fluidity with which he moved” (Goethals & Allison pg.23). The radio could not show the weird or uncomfortable movements Nixon was making on screen. Following the debate, President Kennedy is now viewed historically as a charismatic leader because the general public saw that his movement and demeanor could be attributed to a positive ‘leader schema’.

This attachment we have to a charismatic or strong leader has had powerful effects in our national or local elections. During the bitter 2016 National Presidential Election, Americans were facing two polarizing candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. While Trump made many brutish and unforgiving remarks during his campaign, many Republican Americans were captivated by his rhetoric and language. Donald Trump was willing to say many things a U.S. Presidential candidate would not have said. People were impressed by his undeterred resolve to lead Washington without the cumbersome bureaucratic structure. Although many Americans were shocked about Trump’s Presidential victory, he was able to garner votes because of the public’s belief of his charismatic qualities. Although this election has passed, the American people must be more conscious if they are voting for a politician’s plans or his outer cues. By using leadership studies, we know that leadership comes in many different forms and traits. Although we may want a charismatic leader, we really need someone who is strongly goal-oriented and is willing to achieve goals ethically. Hopefully, the American people can better scrutinize the leadership qualities and cues of the 2020 candidates for this upcoming election.

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “Reading Response for April 1

  1. Sofia Torrens

    I agree, I was thinking about Trump and his mannerisms during the 2016 election. I think that he was the mysterious option, he was not a politician, he used common language, etc. I think that people that did not know who to vote for went for the mysterious option because the thought an unconventional candidate could do good for the government.

  2. Nadia Iqbal

    You mentioning the four cues (language, voice, appearance, and movement) made me wonder, besides appearance, is it possible for us to cultivate the other 3 cues? Reflecting on my time at mock trial in particular, we practiced constantly on our legal language, our inflection/projection, and how we moved about the well. Maybe this gives me a little hope that we can tap into some of these cues, instead of completely signed off because of our appearance.

  3. Nikhil Mehta

    People distrust politicians because they believe they will say anything to get elected. But, in 2016, many people who voted for Trump couldn’t see that he was using the same tactic. This is largely because they didn’t know much about Trump beyond how he presented himself. However, now that a lot more is known about him, especially his leadership ability (or inability), voters may change their opinion of him in the upcoming election.

Comments are closed.