Dr. Bezio’s paper, “Crooked Politics: Shakespeare’s Richard III and Leadership in 21st Century America,” is one of many examples of toxic leadership traits pervading both medieval and modern leadership. We discuss in class many medieval examples of leadership– whether it be charismatic, toxic charismatic, tyrannical, or any possibility– because there are so many modern-day connections we can make to leaders such as Donald Trump. Although technology and political ideas may have shifted, “We are as likely to fall victim to toxic charisma as were medieval nobles or early modern playgoers,” (Bezio 5) because followers will inherently fall for the same tricks toxic charismatics play to gain acclaim. The comparisons are endless: promising economic stability, division of partisan lines, the objectification of female leaders, lack of political experience, convincing higher-power representatives of candidacy, bigotry, and many more. Although we had discussed medieval leadership as a precursor for modern leadership, I did not realize how blatant the parallel was.
I was also intrigued by Bezio’s speculation that women entering the political sphere today can “save” us. We often hear the quote from Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” (Lavoie, The Harvard Gazette); Bezio discusses the “unruly” women present in Richard III use powerful words against Richard to knock him down. Despite his misogyny and accusations of the women’s witchcraft, these women are part of what gets Henry to power. Comparing this medieval literary account to modern-day political implications is important in studying patterns of leadership methods. Women in politics such as Rashida Tlaib and AOC make their cases against Trump through their oratory to be “unruly” against Trump’s main ideologies. It is these women in power– particularly women of color, LGBTQ+ folks, and individuals with intersecting identities– who will help shift the public opinion against a toxic charismatic such as Donald Trump.
Anna Marston
I thought this paper was very well written taken into consideration all the different parallels and connections that were being made throughout it. Like you, I thought that the parallel that was made between the females in the play with the women in congress was very interesting and surprisingly very similar.
I was also very interested by the comparison between the women who brought down Richard III and the women in Congress today who are leading the resistance against Trump. We talked in class today about ways to resist a tyrant leader other than killing them, and these comparisons made me think more about the best way to do that.
I agree with all of your opinions on women within history, and I also think women are very underrated leaders in a historical context. I think women can be a helping hand to male figures, and can make many changes that are unrecognized. I also thought the females roles within Richard III were much more powerful than they initially seemed, but without the wives the story would have been different.
I was also interested in professor Bezio’s point about how unruly women are the ones who cause change in our political and social systems. To a degree, I agree with this point because those leaders who can enact change are not going to be the quiet ones on the sideline. Women have always been ignored and delegitimized in many ways, which makes this idea of an ‘unruly lady’ even more important