The first reading by Christian Camerota reinforced to me that King was indeed a charismatic man. King was chosen to lead protests despite his lack of experience, showing that something drew people to him; people viewed him as the type of man that they wanted to follow, the mark of a “true charismatic.” His emphasis on the imperfection of our leaders made me think about other high-profile leaders with their own imperfections. JFK was a known philanderer, yet that is rarely the first thing that people think of when reflecting on his presidency. Similarly, George Washington was a slave owner as were many other Founding Fathers, but their reputations remain untarnished. On the other hand, there have been many influential leaders whose legacies have been outshined by their mistakes. Alexander Hamilton set up our financial system that allowed us to be a unified group of states, but his very public affair dragged his name and reputation through the mud. Does this have something to do with “how much good” the leader does during their life? Does this have something to do with their reputation at the time of their death? I’m genuinely curious so please discuss.
When I started Clayborne Carson’s piece, I felt that he was being too hard on King. I was definitely raised in the kind of environment that Carson criticized, an environment that galvanized King’s leadership skills while ignoring other factors and components of the Civil Rights Movement, but even when taking those things into consideration, King was still a charismatic and influential leader. On page 29, Carson says King was “overcome with fear rather than confident and secure in his leadership role,” but do we know that those outside his inner circle saw this fear? Part of charismatic leadership is developing the persona; just because MLK may have felt afraid does not mean that his followers saw or felt that same fear. Carson also cites the example that black students initiated counter sit-ins without waiting for King to tell them to do so. Charismatic leaders have messages or agendas that they wish their followers to adopt. While I am certainly no expert on Dr. King, I think that the largest part of his message was standing up peacefully against racial injustice, exactly what these students did. Even without explicit encouragement from King, these students embraced his philosophy and lived-out King’s message.
Shortly after this point, I wondered by Carson even wrote this piece. It seemed very negative and belittling of King’s accomplishments, even though he threw a few paragraphs of praise in there. Shortly after wondering this, I reached page 32 where Carson emphasizes that others can recognize qualities similar to King within themselves. He wrote this piece to humanize the public perception of Dr. King so that others can see the most meaningful portions of his life had nothing to do with charisma. This ties in very well to the first reading because they aim to accomplish the same goal: allowing lay people to see the potential within themselves.
I agree with your initial sentiment that the article came off very negative and critical at first. But, the author’s main point of not wanting to mislabel MLK as a charismatic leader really struck me. To be a charismatic leader puts a person above everyone else and I don’t believe that was ever MLK’s intentions. I, too, agree that this idea ties perfectly well into making MLK relatable, thus allowing people to see themselves in him which is very powerful.
You bring up an interesting observation that the author at times discredited MLK’s leadership and impact. I also felt that he went too far at times, especially when talking about how much of the civil rights movement would have continued similarly without MLK’s presence. At the same time, I don’t think Carson’s piece was a shot at Dr. King’s legacy, but rather an attempt to better understand the leadership systems that existed within the Civil Rights movement.