Month: September 2019

The very last sentence of Ruscio’s article almost asks the reader if we believe that a democracy can survive a leader who lacks humility? In my opinion, absolutely not. A leader without humility has pride and arrogance which cloud their judgment and decision-making skills. They don’t fit easily in a system that almost depends on them making mistakes and being wrong, so that they can learn from them and move on. A leader without humility also has a composition that places them not in the middle of arrogance and timidity but leaning towards arrogance, which ultimately can lead to them being labeled as a tyrant, due to tyranny being defined as a leader who acts in their own interest and not in the interests or needs of their people. In this way, a leader without humility is basically or almost a tyrant, which means that it is no longer a democracy.

In the article, Ruscio lists off abilities of a humble leader, such as the ability to admit their errors, learn from their mistakes, and have reverence for the institutions they occupy or that are above them and the reluctance to utilize power. Hearing these characteristics of a humble leader, it made me think that our current leader isn’t very humble. Throughout his years in office, I haven’t heard of many apologies or how much respect he has for valid people in our democracy. I don’t believe his learned from his mistake either in that he keeps doing the wrong things, in Tweets and in how his laws aren’t promoting equality or honestly. Trump also does not see himself as imperfect, which Ruscio states as one common denominator amongst Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

Leave a Comment

I really enjoyed the way this reading was written. I thought it communicated the information in a way that was easy to read and understand. I also felt like I learned a lot from the examples provided that I had never learned in history classes I’ve taken throughout my education. This reminded me of the what we have talked about in class about the way history is taught to American youth and the way it should be. I think it would be beneficial for children to learn more about what made certain figures good leaders and others bad leaders. It would be better for them to know why people were able to be successful rather than just what they were successful in.

I had never thought about how important it was for a leader to realize that they are not infallible. In hindsight it makes sense because we have set up a system with checks and balances because we know that our leaders have faults and make mistakes. If a leader knows they are fallible they will be less afraid to admit when they make mistakes and thus more easily able to fix mistakes. I also feel like this can help prevent the leader’s rosy halo and humanize leaders. By admitting that they have faults, leaders will be put up on less of a pedestal and followers will be more likely to be unafraid to question their actions and keep them in check with the values of the people people.

This article further reenforced in my mind that we are in uncertain times under the Trump administration. We are on uncertain ground by having a leader that seems to have no humility. He see himself as perfect, which is dangerous for a president who has real power to make the lives of millions more difficult.

 

1 Comment

Why is humility when it pertains to leaders forgotten? When defining leadership in class and in the article, words like strong, assertive, and visionary are repeated. However, we forget the importance of humility as defined by the article as not arrogant, not timid, but with the ability to accept error, consider help, and open to change.

As I was reading about leadership in democracy, and analyzing the characteristics of presidents that embodied humility, I could not help but think how Trump was the complete opposite of that. It was to my surprise that toward the end of the reading, the lack of humility was being alluded to Trump the whole time. NOt only does he lack humility seen though his ignorance, but almost clearly fits the title of a tyrant.

1 Comment

Wow. This talk was really powerful, and she brought up a lot of points about like the impact of what people are doing that I do not necessarily always think about or even know. She talked about how everyone always talks about restrooms and how they are the driving factor in why anti-trans or anti-LGBTQ people can get legislation dissolved and how when it starts with a bathroom, it leads to transgenders not being able to go out into society because they cannot find a restroom in public and can only be away from home for a few hours and so even though it seems like something as simple as a restroom, it’s a disguise for pushing all trans people back down and into the shadows. I really liked how she stated she transitioned not to be happy, but to be free. I think that some people who are against LGBTQ people see it as a way for them to be happy and so they think that they can just stop feeling that way but for trans people especially, it’s MORE than being happy it’s relieving that they can begin to feel like themselves which what any human should have the right to do. Sarah quoted MLK and a few other people and that made me think about our class discussions and how the people we talk about really are leaders because people in present day quote them in their speeches and the things that they say are still true in this day and age. She quoted MLK when he talked about the importance of “now” and how it’s not something that can be dragged out and ignored because this is people’s lives that we have the power to impact and it’s even more vital because it is, in some drastic cases, whether or not someone can live. Sarah brought up how legislation under the Trump administration is taking to the court cases about disbanding laws that protect LGBTQ people from restaurants, jobs, public places, etc all because they are LGBTQ and I’m just like ??? what the heck Trump always be on his crackhead hours or something because it’s not like they are any less of a person and why should they have to be asked to leave restaurants or be able to be fired ESPECIALLY in this day and age like if someone has a problem with it they have the right to leave themselves but what makes them think someone else should leave if they aren’t even bothering you? Anyway, another point she brought up had a lot to do with the reading of recent articles, including The Prince, or at least I thought it did, because she mentions how it’s the people’s job to make the difference and everyone has a part in it, not just someone who is representing the group like Sarah who goes out and speaks to people. The real action is completed when the people she talks to gets involved as well and it made me think of the idea that a leader is not a leader without their followers because then who would they be motivating and leading?

 

Overall I definitely enjoyed the talk and I really liked how President Crutcher has started this series.

Leave a Comment

Machiavelli is an interesting dude. On one hand his theories on how to be an effective leader seem to be extremely controversial and wrong. But on the other hand his rules and stipulations seem like incredibly accurate and are almost proven to work if a person wants to be an effective leader. This raises an interesting question, especially because the morality of The Prince seems to not exist, is it possible to be a moral and effective leader? Machiavelli makes it seem like both which is mind boggling as we humans tend to really try and think of everything we do as black and white. 

It is also very interesting that people hate this book, or at least love to hate it. This is interesting to me because again it is really good information to have if you want to be the most effective leader possible. It makes me wonder if Lorenzo de Medici made people hate it then because he was the Prince it became so ingrained in the nobility of Italy then spread outward to other countries nobilities that laughed at how it made their position seem so dirty and cruel perpetuating the idea that The Prince was so wrong and hateable.

Leave a Comment

Machiavelli’s The Princeis basically a blueprint of what a successful leader looks like. For the most part, I think Machiavelli’s work lays out what most people think of in terms of an effective leader in the highest position of power. The one, miniscule thing I did not agree with was his claim that a leader that comes into power through fortune has trouble maintaining their power. The entire monarchy in England disproves this; for nearly hundreds of years, England was ruled by a monarchy where the next seat on the throne was either given to someone in the family or someone who was designated by the monarch, barring conquest, of course.

 

Other than this claim, I found The Prince to be pretty reasonable. I was impressed with Machiavelli’s explanation of how a leader can be feared yet maintain the popularity of their people. Machiavelli asserts that if a leader had to be either loved or feared, it is better to be feared. When I read this at first, I thought this directly contradicts his claim that in order to be an effective ruler, one must have their people behind them. However, he explains that fear and absence of hatred can go together. If the ruler can exercise their power without infringing on the property or liberty of his citizens, this balance is possible. Machiavelli further clarified his point that being feared is more secure than being loved by explaining that being loved is up to his people and is out of his control. Conversely, being feared is up to the ruler and in his full control.

 

Lastly, a topic that we discussed in class resurfaced in this reading. Machiavelli recognized that it is difficult for a leader to have all the traits he described as essential to a successful rule. He maintains that it is really the perception of having these traits that is important. In talking about the 6 characteristics of charismatic leaders, we concluded that it’s the appearance of confidence that really matters, and it is unimportant whether or not the leader is actually confident.

4 Comments

In this article the question in my opinion that is begged is whether or not a leader of any sort strive for being feared or loved. In the ideal world the obvious answer would be both but if you can’t afford both then it is better to be feared. If you are just loved then people may look at you as just a peer and the folders may not listen to you. In order to be fully effective as a leader one must strive to be feared. When you are feared, you must attempt to have the followers be “fearful” of you which in return will make you most effective when getting messages across or trying to assemble things for your followers.

Previously in our class, a question that has been begged is whether or not leaders are born or made. If we take a look at some previous leaders in history who have been extremely prevalent in even todays society it is important to seek out MLK. He was someone who without being born into a religious family and his father being the “leader” at a chapel or being born during desegregation era then his role might not have been as important and he might not be able to make as big of an impact as he had done.

6 Comments

In “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli he talks about all the ways to gain leadership in a monarchy and also ways to maintain that leadership in a monarchy. He talks about a lot of key points that caught my attention when reading through it. One of the things he says is that “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.” (105) This quote seems really important to me because a leader is supposed to bring new ideas and beliefs into action and when that gets shut down immediately than it just seems like a leader cant lead the way a leader is supposed to.

Another interesting point he talks about that made me think about leaders who have gained their position through family lineage is when he said “Those who rise from private citizens to be princes merely by fortune have little trouble in rising but very much n maintaining their position.” (106) This made a lot of sense to me when I read it because I can relate to situations in my life that someone may have gotten something through fortune but has trouble maintaining it because of how little they worked to get where they are or what they have. He goes on to give examples of princes who have worked for the position they want like Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus.

4 Comments

Within this article, Machiavelli elaborated on the idea that fear should be instilled in the people in order for new ideologies to be introduced. He says how people have been accustomed to their own ways therefore creating resistance for new power. However, once that new power is established, the reign won’t last before citizens begin to resist in order to return to what it was before.

He goes on to explain how leaders like Moses, Cyrus, and Romulus have traits and actions that helped to create their success as leaders. He states, “and if their particular actions and methods are examined they will not appear very different”(104). Meaning that when you analyze their actions and traits, that these leaders are very similar. I found this interesting when relating it to our class discussion regarding charismatic leadership because of what makes a leader charismatic and how individuals share traits and actions that make them successful. In addition, i thought it was important how he added that opportunities presented themselves and these leaders ceased them in order to fulfill their goals for the people. In order for those traits to emerge, opportunities must surface to enable these leaders to take action.

6 Comments

I thought this was honestly somewhat boring to read. It was dry and not super entertaining. But the one thing that I found interesting was when Machiavelli said “states quickly founded, like all other things of rapid beginnings and growth, cannot have deep roots and wide ramifications, so that the first storm destroys them” (106) I thought that this idea is still very prevalent in today’s society in regions that are highly unstable. It can be seen that when a leader is overthrown, not only is it bad for the country, it is bad for the economy and the future growth of the country. This drastic change in leadership styles (usually anyway) causes severe instability and makes the countries around them and the international powerhouses hesitant to send aid. This just creates more problems because there is no chance for them to recover. Machiavelli follows up the earlier quote with “unless, as already said, the man who this becomes a prince is of such great genius as to be able to take immediate steps for maintaining the fortune thrown into his lap, and lay afterward those foundations which other make before becoming princes” (106-107). This basically says that there is a leader who is willing and capable of thinking toward the future and putting down ‘roots’ is the only way that the country will be stable. This is where this quote ties into leadership. There must be a strong leader to help the country then it may be able to be a country that is able to help its people and interact as a force with the world.

1 Comment

One of my main takeaways from this piece is that in order to establish new ideologies, there has to be some level of violence, or threat of violence, involved.

Machiavelli starts off by addressing the fact that people that are used to governing themselves and living by their own laws are going to be unwilling to adapt to new regimes of power. Even if there is success in establishing this new realm of thinking/governing, its preservation won’t last as it will not be long before the people begin to revolt to recover this sense of self agency. He also claims that there is nothing more difficult, unlikely to succeed, and dangerous than trying to initiate a new order. He argues that this is a result of never having actual support–claiming that the population consists of people who are either against the new order in totality or are ‘lukewarm supporters’. This type of resistance is one of the claims Machiavelli uses to justify violent reformation. 

Later in his argument, Machiavelli states that most new establishments will either accomplish nothing or fail unless

“…they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force…”. He believes that unless people are forced there is no way to ensure the movement’s success, no matter how skilled the person in persuasion. 

I do not agree with this article. Even though it may work to use violence to develop a new regime, this new power will not last under fear. If people are discontent, there will be rebellion and thus bloodshed. Force is not the most efficient way to establish a new concept, and it should not and would not be used by a truly effective leader.

 

3 Comments

In Machiavelli’s The Prince, one line in particular stuck out to me: “One, however, who becomes prince by favour of the populace, must maintain its friendship, which he will find easy,  the people ask nothing but not to be oppressed” (113). I found this interesting because it goes directly contrary to how we thought of monarchies before this point. In England, if a person came into power legally (bloodline, designation, conquest), he would be a legal ruler regardless of the people’s preferences. The idea of needing the approval of the people reminds me of American democracy. To rise into the any political office requires the “favour of the populace,” but a person can only stay in that position if they can continue to maintain approval.

Another portion of the reading that caught my attention was on page 123 where Machiavelli talked about appearances versus actuality. He says that princes only need to appear as if they have the true qualities of a prince, and it does not matter whether they actually possess them or not. This reminded me of our discussion on charisma and whether it can be learned behavior versus inherent. Basically, our conclusion was that we ourselves cannot know unless we know the leader personally. Machiavelli says exactly this, that princes need to present himself with mercy, faith, humanity, sincerity, and religion, and only these 5 things, and his own qualities or personality traits do not matter.

4 Comments

The point that Machiavelli made definitely makes sense. As much power as leaders have, they are not truly omniscient ever. If they are truly omniscient this is dependent on how tolerable they are to their followers and also have empowered their followers are to retaliate against them. I appreciate how Machiavelli adds that a King must not infuriate in the clergy. It is true that there are caste and class differences in most societies all over the world. It is not imperative in every society that the leaders please everyone. The real importance is that leaders either please enough people or simply enough of the right people.

A good example that this made me think about was Charles I. The fact that Charles I believed that he obtained Divine Right and was definitely a Tyrant is not actually relevant. This problem for Charles I appeared when he did not truly satisfy his clergy. It was exacerbated when he expressed his lack of acknowledgement of the issues that his clergy had. When he got enemies he became a target. He could have been like his father and believed what he wanted while still serving those at minimum would might challenge him. In this case, he probably would not have been assassinated. Machiavelli’s ideology definitely makes sense. No one really cares how much other people have unless they are truly without. Leaders can have as much power as they please if they continue to support those that are below them. When this expectation is broken people truly begin to get labeled and tyrants.

3 Comments

In The Prince, Machiavelli gives advice on the best way(s) for how rulers are to approach governing new cities with citizens who formerly lived freely under the law. In a way, citizens weren’t really restricted by laws because they helped create, implement and maintain their laws; they were autonomous. So, a ruler, maybe a prince, was to be the one who established any true “laws”. Because they were autonomous, I believe their “laws” should be called “agreements” or “[shared] norms” instead. Although Machiavelli gives three options for princes to take when governing a formerly autonomous, he strongly advises the first option for a prince to despoil the preexisting laws. He heavily supported the first option using this logic: if a prince takes reign over a free city without destroying it, then the prince will be destroyed by it because people can rebel against his rule in the name of liberty and tradition. I agree to the extent that citizens would only desire to return to their old way of law and rebel if the ruler does something undesirable/unfair and lacks authority anyway. Therefore, I believe the best option for a prince to take is option 2: “go and live there in person”. I understand this advice to be equivalent to, “If you can’t beat them, then join them.”

Machiavelli’s reference to Moses as a “prince by merit” challenged my thinking. I always thought that Moses was chosen by God because God had divine favor on him, not because of anything special that Moses had done or possessed. When I think of merit, I think of hard work and dedication put into something (that would eventually produce an outcome). So, would it really be appropriate to say that Moses was a “prince by merit” and not fortune? In technical terms, Moses was not a prince by fortune either. I think of “fortune” having a more secular connotation, in which the universe, not God, can reward one with “good fortune”. Perhaps, it would be more probable to make good “fortune” synonymous with “blessings (in Biblical terms).

5 Comments

In Niccolò Machiavelli’s famous 16th-century work, The Prince, the author presents a guide of written solutions to successfully ruling a regime with an absolute monarchy. His argument is concise: big, radical ideas lead to political divisiveness. Machiavelli says, “there is nothing more difficult to carry out, more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order” (105). In this response, I want to focus on this idea that Machiavelli presents saying that brand new ideas can result in a weak government and scare away followers’ loyalty. In his first few chapters, the author presents all different leadership scenarios and different ways that princes may have seized power. This framework for the rest of the book allows Machiavelli to present various situations a prince might put his values before those of the people, leading to a detrimental effect on the people. Conversely, Machiavelli argues that princes “must not mind incurring to the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful,” (119) meaning that leaders sometimes have to make immoral decisions in the best interest of the people. However, what is important is that the prince appears to be one of the people, even if that is not necessarily true.

 

The Prince reminded me of many of the same principles of Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave and the discussion we had in class today that leaders may not always be 100% truthful to their followers. This idea ties into Machiavelli’s argument that if a prince presents lofty ideas to his people, the government will be weak, and the opposite effect if he makes a seemingly “cruel” decision. Plato’s work argues that a leader cannot give followers reality all of the time and that we cannot know everything and anything, while Machiavelli argues that the appearance of being reliable may be just as important as actually executing that promise. The idea of the “real”, the “model”, and the “shadow” apply to lead in situations such as those presented by Machiavelli in the earlier chapters of his book.

4 Comments

Machiavelli’s excerpt from The Prince discusses the ways in which a prince, ruling over a city, is able to retain his power. over a city that is accustomed to liberty. He can either rule from afar and lay waste to the city, or he can reside in the city and rule from within. Machiavelli’s cynical view of politics and republicanism is on full display when he notes that the ruler of a free city will either destroy the city himself or allow himself to be destroyed by the city. Machiavelli believes that republicanism and personal liberty will bring out the most dangerous and negative behavior in humans and will ultimately wage destruction on the city or state. There is a degree of power and control the prince must have, and a very clear separation from his followers/subjects in order for him to stay in power. The place of the prince is clearly constructed, stable, and exercises power from the center- he does not change or allow himself to be influenced by the changing tides of the state or its public opinions.

I think this connects to one of the discussions we had in class today, specifically about how our own truths and realities are often distorted because we could never understand the burden and position of being a leader. Likewise, the leader has a very different perception of reality since they do not understand the personal wants and needs of the followers- simply because they are not one of them. In Machiavelli’s case, he directly argues against the notion of the leader trying to understand the realities of his followers- precisely because Machiavelli believes the people, with too much power and liberty, will tear down societal and political institutions and cause chaos. Similarly, his quintessential idea of “the end justifying the means” calls into question the morals and the ethics of politicians. Are politicians required to make unjust, unethical decisions in order to preserve the state and keep the people safe? To what degree should the common people be informed of these decisions? Machiavelli’s answer is that the prince needs a stable, static role in the polity, or else the polity would cease to exist. This is a very pessimistic and cynical view of politics, but it is one of the concepts Machiavelli is most famous for. He also wrote much of his work in an increasingly unstable and chaotic state of Italian politics and social order, which likely explains his view of government and its role in the life of the people.

3 Comments

Machiavelli writes The Prince with the intention of teaching how to rule and his work is known and respected worldwide. He talks a lot about the manipulation of fear in a prince’s favor. He argues that fear can be used to maintain power and is not necessarily a bad thing. He also argues that you do not have to be loved as long as you are not hated. I think this is interesting because all of the other works we read and discuss in class only seem to talk about being liked. We spent a lot of time talking about charisma and how important it was that a great leader had charismatic qualities that include being likable. So I think it’s interesting that Machiavelli does not put that much emphasis on that like the other authors.

I also think it’s interesting how Machiavelli argues that in order for a new prince that is taking over a free state or a prince that comes to power through violence should destroy not wound. I completely agree with him on this issue even though it may seem cruel or harsh. People who once knew freedom will not take kindly to being ruled by a prince so it is important that you destroy their sense of freedom so that they do not rebel. The same goes for a prince who has seized power through violence. they must destroy all of the people who were in power before to prevent rebellions as well.

4 Comments