Month: September 2019

Within the first 15 minutes of the movie Richard III, I was already interested and confused. I thought it was interesting, just as Bezio said, that Shakespeare chose to focus on Richard and how clear he portrayed his evil tendencies. I also found how heartless and Richard’s inconsideration for others bazar. I could not believe that he would visit the wife of the man he just murdered and ask for her heart so soon. We talked about charisma in class and it was interesting to see how Richard used his charisma to try to win over this woman even while she was in grief.

Bezio compares Richard III to Donald Trump by explaining how toxic charisma affected us 400 years ago and continues to affect us today. Bezio provides numerous examples to show how these two people correlate. I remember talking about this in class as well and someone asked if we could consider Donald Trump a Tyrant but we came to the conclusion that he had tendencies but was not an actual tyrant. However, we also said a tyrant is a toxic charismatic and Bezio argues that Trump is one too, so can we consider him a Tyrant under those terms?

I definitely agree with everything stated in the “Crooked Politics” by Bezio. It proves the theory that there is truly “nothing new under the sun”. The amount of parallels between Shakespear’s storyline and Trump’s behavior since the 2016 election is astonishing. Not only did he use the exact same tactics as Richard III but it links very closely to our idea of Tyranny. Richard the III became a medieval tyrant of sorts degrading other people as his tactic to get into office and through his reign. It is sad to me that we are not past the point of accepting this sort of behavior from our leader in the era of innovation or cultivation that we are currently in.

In the article, Bezio highlighted how both Richard III and Trump played on the fears of others to make their way into office. This links strongly to the idea of Charisma, importantly, the way that we discussed it in class. Charisma has nothing to do with qualification, care, or authenticity. Instead, it has everything to do with what a person can say and who they can convince. Nothing is rooted in truth or transparency. This is what allowed both Trump and Richard III to refuse to answer to those who are in office as a form of Checks and Balances (Congress).

I appreciate the tone of optimism used at the end of the article. However, if we as a culture keep allowing charisma to overshadow quality and honesty, then we will remain in the cycle of leaders who do in fact abuse their power. We will be stuck with leaders who are held accountable to no one and who feel free to say anything to anyone no matter how degrading. The main difference between the Richard III era and the one that we are currently living in is that back then there were enough people who saw Richard’s actions and were repulsed.

I fear that now the country is too immune to the actions of Trump to be as repulsed as it would take to replace him. In other words, no one supports his actions, however, they may vote for him again due to party affiliation despite everything that Trump has done that people may personally disagree with.

However, since apparently we are currently living in a play- I do hope that Bezio is right and that our story will end similarly to what Shakespeare intended.

As I was watching the movie, I was kept wondering whether Richard III qualifies as a tyrant by the definition we’ve been using. The first part of our definition involves his rise to power. Technically he was legally appointed to the position of Lord Protector, but there was only a need for that role after Richard killed his brother and his son was too young to rule independently. Richard then place his nephews in a prison-like tower to allow for his own rise to kingship. While others may support the action of locking away the nephews, Richard disrupts the proper line of succession an increase in his own power.

Last class we discussed that England defines a tyrant by a leader who infringes on the rights of the English People. We know very little about Richard’s interactions with the common people because we see none of those reactions. This is because he is so consumed with his own affairs and increasing his own personal power that we never see him think about his subjects. Richard III is obsessed with personal interest and personal gain throughout the entire movie, seen throughout his numerous murderous actions. Particularly, murdering Buckingham shows his dedication to accumulating personal power. Buckingham was a loyal follower, supporter, and ally for the first half of the movie, but the moment he showed doubts about Richard and his intentions, he is offed. The only time we see anything besides power-hunger from Richard is when he is haunted by the memories of his victims, yet that does not stop him from venturing into battle.

We can discuss whether we believe Richard is a tyrant by perfect definition, but I think we can all agree that he is a negative leader. He never performs the murders himself, but there is no doubt that he ordered them to be conducted. What disturbed me the most was when he had a man hanged and appeared to be admiring the images of his dead body afterwards. It made him appear remarkably unhinged (which he is to be fair).

Richard III by Shakespeare as directed Richard Loncraine is highly intriguing. Richard is most definitely a narcissist and tyrant by all the definitions we talked about in class. It was weirdly impressive how his toxic charisma was able to convince so many people to follow him. When Richard’s III mother went off on Richard she seemed to be one of the only ones who noticed he was being so tyrannical. It makes you wonder what the mothers of people like Hitler felt when their children became what they were.

Then in the discussion and deconstruction by Professor Bezio of the characters within in Richard III. The idea that Richard III can equate to Trump was kinda funny to me especially in regards to the Toxic Charisma and Crooked politics. The connection is fairly obvious Trump especially when it regards to how the two conduct themselves in public. They are both charismatic but when you look closer both seem highly narcissistic. And their toxic charisma messes with the natural flow of the countries they govern

I think it’s very easy to see from the outside how Richard was being manipulative, especially because he talked to the camera. Seeing how easy it was for him to trick people into thinking and agreeing with him on whatever he said is scary. (Also how in the world did he convince that girl to marry him in the beginning right next to her dead husband?? I am still shook about that). Including Dr. Bezio’s article, I really liked the point about how women were Richard’s overall downfall because I had not thought of it in that way. The quote from Richard when he talked about being able to murder while smiling and how he smiled as he fell to his death was actually terrifying.

I’d like to say it is easy to prevent bad leaders from gaining power but both Richard and Trump had a way of making enough people believe them and the fact that they were able to do it, and that this tactic stems from such a long time ago makes me more concerned for America than I was already. As I was watching the movie, all I could think about was how these people let him get this far and how disgusting Richard was. Then I read Dr. Bezio’s article and I was appalled by how I had not seen just how manipulative Trump had been to the American people. I knew he had lied and done bad things but seeing how Richard didn’t even care about his actions and then the connection to Richard and Trump, it’s sad to know that someone like those two men had any power given to them at all.

It was very interesting and disturbing to have the comparisons of Donald Trump and the play Richard III by Shakespeare be so real. Throughout reading “Crooked Politics: Shakespeare’s Richard III and Leadership in 21st Century America” by Dr. Bezio I kept thinking back to the day in class when we talked about toxic charismatics. During class Trump did come to mind when thinking of examples of a toxic charismatic, but having all of Trump’s actions spelled out in front of me made me realize how he is not only is a toxic charismatic but that he also has characteristics of a tyrant. It amazes me how Trump can truly manipulate his audience to get people to like him and agree with what he is saying. I found it especially disturbing the comparison to Richard III’s cronies supporting him and praising him to Trumps staff and family, and how some of the public take the support as a cue to support him as well.

It is scary how many comparisons there are between Shakespeare’s play and what is currently occurring in US politics. Yet, I did find that there was a glimmer of hope when discussing how the way to bring Richard III down was through words, and there are opportunities to bring Trump down; weather it be in the 2020 election or through impeachment, people today have a lot more voice in politics, especially with social media. I also have hope for the women of this nation because so many women are getting more involved and have a real opportunity to enact change.

This movie was very interesting to watch after talking about tyrants and personal gain in class. In the movie we see how someones desire for power will propel them to do many unethical things. The movie shows how someone can come into power in a legitimate way, conquest of the throne. After the civil war a new line takes the throne. After the legitimate gain of power Richard III starts showing tyrannical behavior as he becomes greedy for more power and self gain. He becomes a very strong tyrant.

I like how in Dr. Bezio’s paper there is a comparrison of 16th century England to Americas current political climate. It is important to look at these comparisons to see how even centuries later toxic charismatic leaders prevail. It was very interesting me that the patterns shown by toxic charismatic leaders can be compared to past unethical leaders in history to see the potentially bad things a leader can amount to.

This paper taught me to look at history and examine the behavior of leaders before and after they gained power. These studies of historical leaders can be used to compare with present leaders. If behaviors are similar we can use the case studies to project a potential path and course of action the present leader may take.

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.

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

Ulrich explains that well-behaved women should make history

Tyrannicide is an interesting topic that I have not thought about too much, solely because we have never seen this in our country’s recent history. The thought of killing an oppressive leader initially strikes me positively but there is one problem: how do we determine who is and who is not a tyrant? Andrade stated in his article, “the moral defense of tyrannicide has the difficulty of specifying who is a tyrant.” However I would think about tyrannicide in a utilitarian way; if the tyrant is nationally disliked I would not see a problem with their assassination.

Andrade later says, “If somehow the tyrant could be removed from power without the shedding of blood, then that option is preferable.” I clearly agree with this statement from a moral stance, but like I said before, the concept of tyrannicide is a slippery slope. The assassination of a tyrant is always questionable, but furthermore, even if a tyrant is killed, there is still no guarantee that a nation will benefit. Overall, I believe that if there is no other way to force an oppressive leader, tyrannicide is justified morally.

Tyrannicide is an interesting topic to discuss in the United States in the year 2019. With all the security around the highest position of power in the Country, the president, I would never think of the President being killed. This is just the most “cliche” scenario for Americans as we all know it can happen on many different levels of a contemporary patriarchy. The David George article revealed how natural Tyrannicide is and how countries have been established on this ideology. This is a topic today, particularly in the United States, that is not discussed very much today but is an event that can take place.

The article by Andrade informs of a more recent view on Tyrannicide. While killing a Tyrant is always controversial, if it benefits the country or society as a whole it makes sense. Whether or not it will work is not guaranteed to succeed. As Sammy mentioned in is post about the killing of Saddam Hussein it can result in arguably a worse scenario. All in all, it is a concept that humans have lived off of for hundreds of years. There is something to note about Tyrannicide if it still a prevalent topic in todays society.

I am an optimist. I like to believe that there is hope in every person for change and ethical. While these readings make some very strong points about the political justification of Tyranicide I do still believe that death is never a justified punishment. Yet, I do understand the extreme sense of fear and insecurity that Tyrants inspire makes it extremely difficult to rebel without execution. A possible solution could be an international council of judges who can sentence a Tyrant to life in prison or a life of exile. This would be beneficial because the council would include respected members from around the world; the power and respect they would hold could overpower the fear of the citizens who are being ruled by the tyrant. This council would be in charge of physically removing the leader from their position. This method could also be beneficial because while these tyrants are in excile we could study and interview them, understand their pasts, their reason for thinking the way they do. This could potentially lead to less extreme methods of removing a tyrant as the knowledge gained could aid in coming up with ethical and effective ways to remove a tyrant from power. That is instead of chopping off the head of a snake to kill the body… this is flawed because there is no regulated way to reconstruct society after the fact.

I think it is interesting how early in “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern terrorism” George states that a selfless act for the good of the people. As mentioned earlier in my post, when I think of murder I think of terror, fear, lack of ethics, and insanity. However, I personally have never lived in a society ruled by a tyrant. I have never known the fear and lack of trust that sprouts from being a powerless, vulnerable citizen. The closest I have come to this phenomenon, aside from learning about it in class or on the internet, is film and movies. The need or inclination for tyrannicide can be understood by thinking about the intense fear when the villain comes onto the screen and the sense of relief that comes from seeing them fall off a cliff or being taken away. It is efficient. It can seem like the only effective option, especially in a society who has lost hope and sence of self secutiy.

Both readings talk a lot about what tyrannicide means, and the ethics behind the term.  While it may be morally justified to assassinate a dictator-like government official, steps need to be taken to assure that the next government will be just and not make the same mistakes as the previous regime.  One of the documents argue, “In most cases, tyrannicide either brings tremendous instability (as in the contemporary Middle East), or simply turns the tyrant’s successors even more despotic, with fierce persecution against the plotters, and even brutal revenge against the population.” Making sure the next government official isn’t corrupt, and that they have resources in place to effectively lead, needs to be considered before disposing of the current regime. 

I actually learned a lot about a situation in Zimbabwe where tyrannicide may have been a potential solution.  Robert Mugabe, who recently passed away, was formerly the leader of Zimbabwe. Mugabe was extremely corrupt, caused mass poverty, and order the army to kill members of the opposing political party.  The issue with just killing him, when was in power, was that the government power was so concentrated that the next leader would have likely been just as corrupt.

While the climate after the assassination is just as important to a successful government overthrow, the morality of the act should also be considered.  The ethics of killing a person is the gray area of the subject that will divide people. At some point murdering one person to save many is necessary, but the question is when that event should take place.  That’s where the difficult lies because the answer changes depending on the person, some may argue that tyrannicide shouldn’t be an option and democracy will prevail in time. How society interprets the intentions of those trying to overthrow a government by means of assassination will determine if history remembers their acts as liberating or criminal.

Despite never knowing the proper name for it, nor completely comprehending all the philosophical discourse surrounding it, I never considered tyrannicide a good idea. And despite reading nearly thirty pages on how tyrannicide is different from political assassination (another thing I’d never thought about before)… I still don’t think it’s a good nor logical course of action.

Article 1 was all about convincing its audience that tyrannicide needs to be talked about more. However, Andrade is unable to dispute the fact that most tyrannicides put their countries in an even worse place than before. And the reason why lines up perfectly with Carson’s (author of one of last week’s articles) argument about MLK. One person, in contemporary times at least, is not going to drastically change a country. It may look that way, but what about all of their subordinates? All the people who make sure they stay in power despite the public wishing otherwise? One of them can step up easily, then what? Kill them too? What about the corruption that bred this “tyrant.” It’s not as simple as the Trolley Problem. If it were, I guarantee people wouldn’t have stopped talking about it.

Article 2 discusses various angles to compare and contrast political assassination and tyrannicide. Often, it really is difficult to differentiate the two. I’d say the most successful/convincing angle was the behavioral lens, yet even that was ambiguous. I actually found myself agreeing with the quote that the author put in as a counter-argument: “Tyranny belongs to an age of heroes, or to situations where the safety and character of the state depends on the personality of one man.” George argues this because this quote makes it sound like a true tyrant can’t exist because the state of a nation can’t depend on one man’s personality… And that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. There is no ONE person you can kill (ahem, assassinate) to make a nation be the way you think it should be–whether you’re from that nation or otherwise.

Both George and Andrade made really good points in bringing up how western culture kind of idolizes Tyrant killers in film, in literature, in myth, and in ancient history; however, reality isn’t so simple. Both articles talk about the possibility of true tyranny in modern times, but I don’t think true tyranny, the kind that tyrannicide could completely negate, can actually exist in modern times.

(p.s. sorry for spelling errors, it’s 1am)

I personally thought before reading these articles that tyrannicide was very much so a justifiable act. My thought process as discussed in the first article was cut the head off and the body will follow in suit leading to the demise of tyranny in that country. However, after reading these articles I discovered that actually killing a tyrant is not always what is best for a nation as well as what constitutes the justifiable murder of a Tyrant leader. In my opinion, as mentioned in the readings, the only way that tyrannicide is justifiable is if it is sure to bring positive results to that nation. It is not justifiable if it is being conducted to seek vengeance. The reason being killing a tyrant can bring uncertainty into those countries making them even worse than before. Sadly, what often happens is their successor is even more extreme in their beliefs. 

This unfortunately holds true in Iraq with the falling of Saddam Hussein. It has been shown that in Iraq after Hussein’s end in power brought total chaos and anarchy has taken over the country. In the moments after his death 75 Iraqii people were killed in which Sunni’s were targeting and murdering Shiite’s. Thirteen years later the country is in even worse condition. Millions of people became refugees, a new terrorist organization called the Islamic state was founded, and the Shiite theocracy now had control over the Iraqi government. Thus proving how tyrannicide is not always the best option for a country’s success. 

Bardenwerper, Will. “Saddam Hussein’s Death Was Supposed to Mark a ‘New Era’ for Iraq. It Didn’t Last Five Minutes.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Dec. 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/30/his-death-was-supposed-to-mark-a-new-era-for-iraq-ten-years-late-sadaam-hussein-haunts-me/.