Skip to content

Richard 3 Blog Post

This was a very stimulating article that reveals the political patterns of society and human nature. Populism, nativism, and xenophobia are nothing new; toxic charismatics have been using these ideas to fuel political campaigns and their legitimacy to rule since the rise of ancient city-states. I think this will open a very interesting class discussion in regards to the idea of women uniting themselves to bring down the President. Unlike the women who joined forces to plot the demise of Richard III, many women and Democrats in Congress have very different ideas of how to defeat Donald Trump. The famous “AOC + 3” coalition has a very different and more confrontational political approach than older, more experienced and centrist women in government such as Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi (even despite Pelosi and Clinton coming to the defense of AOC +3 on twitter). Trump’s own rise to power has caused a deep schism in both Democrat and Republican parties,  as groups of diverse political ideologies, conservative and liberal, have tried to unite under a common cause of defeating Trump, but have been unable to garner popular support and have even found it difficult to work with each other (great variation of domestic and foreign policies between Clinton, AOC, Pelosi, Sanders, Gillibrand, Harris). I think this has to do with the ways in which women’s roles in government and politics have changed from King Richard’s time and our modern era. Margaret and Elizabeth advocated for a change of the throne and were united behind a one, new, male figurehead. In a new era of politics where women have increasingly larger and more participatory roles in government, we have learned that it can be quite difficult to rally people around an ideology, especially if that ideology is “defeat Donald Trump” but the many different groups supporting that cause have such a wide array of beliefs about policy and social rights.

The article is also relative to the political opinions of readers. While there is no denying the toxic charisma of Trump, there is much to be said about the congresswomen mentioned in the paper, such as whether one believes the attacks in Benghazi were caused by the diffusion of the “Innocence of Muslims” riots or whether the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism that the State Department was not prepared to handle. Readers’ varying opinions of the Israeli- Palestine conflict will also shape the way they view representatives such as Tlaib and Omar, and whether they believe these characters are similar to the women who brought down Richard III and ushered in the rule of the Tudors. As previously discussed in class, it is frustrating to realize that many concepts are not as concrete as we believe them to be since everything is relative and subject to an individual’s own mind, culture, and upbringing, but these are the realities of the world that must be confronted to facilitate civil discussions about a shift from populism back to democratic leadership.

Published inUncategorized

One Comment

  1. Ryan Leizman Ryan Leizman

    I enjoyed the last point you made about how our opinions may change how we interpret events, readings, and other situations. It is important to note that humans are unbiased by nature, which makes it even more imperative to fully understand issues before passing judgement. This is especially true in those gray areas that you mentioned.

Leave a Reply