Author: Connor Roswech

This article discussed the ways in which the media covers Trump, and how Trump has attacked the media to avoid asking questions about his own corruption and misgivings. Archer notes that many politicians in the past, Republican and Democrats, have employed similar tactics and have expressed the same distaste for mainstream media. In Trump’s presidency, the magnitude, intensity, and frequency of these attacks on the media have skyrocketed, making them quite different from Nixon, Bush, and Clinton’s attacks on the media. The rise of cable news channels like MSNBC and FOX have changed the way reporters cover candidates and the way we look at the media as a society. In some shape or form, all politicians are calling out some branch of the media as they believe different sources are unjustly biased against them. In this effort to control the narrative, politicians are keeping more secrets from the American public. I think the rise and demand for conservative news is pretty interesting. The ways in which are modern political parties impact social media, YouTube, and television are huge developments in history because partisan cable news channels now make millions of dollars and have pretty significant impacts on informing(or misinforming) voters about the news.

There are definitely a lot of similarities between Trump and Nixon’s campaign. Nixon was considered much more moderate than his fellow California politician that is more often associated with modern conservatism, Ronald Regan, who would become president about a decade later. Nixon probably would have disagreed with many of Trump’s policies (I’m not sure Trump still fits the mold of any political party for that matter, and he probably never did to begin with), but like Trump, Nixon’s campaign found a great success in mobilizing the “silent majority” oF America. The use of the media and the rise of television in the 60s and 70s had a pretty big impact on voter turnout since many (probably pretty racist) people who did not agree with legislation being pushed during the Civil Rights Movement felt like they were not being represented since they were not actively protesting and being covered by the media. Trump tapped into a similar support group in his 2016 campaign; people that voted for Trump and did not agree with Obama’s progressive politics, but they weren’t publicly expressing their admiration for Trump

Leave a Comment

In this video, we learned about the Vietnam protest movement and the increasing American opinion to bring the troops home from the war. People drafted in the military were disprortionately black, without a college degree, and from lower socio economic classes. The drafting committees were decentralized and it was largely up to the powerful, almost autonomous committees when deciding who would be drafted into war. Many Americans felt as if this wasn’t their war to fight, Vietnam was on the other side of the world and this war was being fought amidst a number of issues on the homefront. Race played a big role in this conflict, as blacks protested during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s not just for equality, but also protested because they refused to be sent to Vietnam. A large number of veterans who returned home even openly protested against the war and famously ripped off their medals on camera. This movement met a severe backlash, and many accused members of the anti war movememnt as being unpatriotic.

This association of anti war movements with anti patriotism is nothing new in American politics. The legacy of the Vietnam syndrome and the anti patriotism associated with this era was a big talking point for Republicans in the 2004 election Bush vs. Kerry. Many Republicans accused Kerry of being unpatriotic due to his open opposition to war in the 60s, and his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The scene of Kerry throwing his medal in the video had a huge impact on his political career, and the Democrat party as a whole. Even just a few years ago, when Kerry finalized the Iran Nuclear Deal, many Americans saw him as an unpatriotic man who was not loyal to his own country and did not risk himself for the flag. It evokes the quintessential role of the American citizens that arose in debates between the Federalists and the Democrat Republicans in the 1790s- what is the role of the American? Should they unquestioningly trust their government and praise their freedom? Or should they question their government, be critical, and offer suggestions, even if militant and radical at times? Or is it a little bit of both??

Leave a Comment

These were two very interesting stories that touched upon the power of tradition, culture, and ritual, and essentially discussed the mysteriousness of humans and why we think and act in the ways that we do. In The Lottery, Mrs. Hutchinson demanded that her family be given the chance to draw again from the black box since her husband was not given adequate time to choose his slip of paper. When each member of her family draws again, she wins the lottery, but that means she gets stoned to death by the rest of the villagers. Why do these customs of sacrifice have such a strong presence in the village? Why does old man Warner fear the younger folk deserting these customary executions? Similarly, The Omelas story explored the mystery of humanity. Here, the people of this free and joyous city could only experience joy when they knew the small, naked, emaciated child was trapped in a holding cell below them. If the child was ever to be freed, the city would crumble.

I think there are some serious elements of groupthink in upholding tradition. It’s not always a bad thing, but often when something is repeated so much and is more than just habitual, it is an ancestral and historical practice, it can be very difficult to stop or to change people’s minds. Mind guarding, and unquestioningly believing in the group’s morality and invulnerability are just some of the issues that shroud around tradition. However as humans, we cling to tradition as it often gives us an identity, purpose, and meaning in life. As seen in the city of Omelas, the sacrifice of the morals of one individual to the good of the group is very powerful. This is why people in the city leave behind their own morality and let the child suffer. Tradition and making sacrifices for the common good of the group do not always have to be bad, but as seen in these two examples, they can be manifestations of selfishness, ignorances, and a loss of individuality.

1 Comment

In both of these articles, the author provided a chronological account of the black struggle for equality. In the first Chapter, Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom, we learned about the political and cultural implications of the Emancipation of 1863, and the events leading up to it and its aftermath. I think its interesting how white abolitionists recieved far more attention and publicity than blacks during the push for emancipation. In a nation where whites dominated the media, the economy, and politics (in a formal institutional sense at least), the author proves how whites had the last say on every matter, and if societal change was going to happen, it could only be done on the terms set by white men. In the following chapter, we look at a much more recent history of the struggle for equality in the 1960s and 70s with the civil rights movement, comparing ideologies of Malcolm X and MLK, and the different cultural practices that were used to express the African American experience through poetry and music. Both of these chapters gave a fundamental outline of leadership tatics and ideologies among black leaders who have been elevated to the icon status such as Du Bois, Tubman, MLK, Malcolm X, and Frederick Douglass.

Leadership and politics has long been institutionalized to systematically discriminate people of color. This is old news and unfortunately is such a complicated problem that it likely can’t be solved in one lifetime or generation. One of the issues that I have read a lot about that the second chapter did not discuss was Nixon’s War on Drugs. I was particularly disturbed when I read that John Ehrlichman, one of Nixon’s top domestic policy advisers, stepped forward and admitted the War on Drugs was an attempt to reverse legislative progress made by the Civil Rights Movement. Heavy decriminalization of heroine and crack cocaine- not the refined powder cocaine that is snorted and is typically more expensive and found in wealthier communities- made the incarceration rate of African Americans sky rocket in the 1970s and broke up families, communities, and neighborhoods. This distinction for the punishment between crack cocaine and powder cocaine is extremely important since one form of the drug was heavily criminalized while police did not arrest many for using the other. This high incarceration rate, many argue, is part of using prison labor as black slave labor, since the 13th amendment does not abolish slave labor for prisoners. FDR’s beginning of the redlining practices, Nixon’s War on Drugs, Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill are all just some examples of how the effects of the slave culture and the desire to profit off of black labor and misfortune has carried into 20th and 21st century politics. Leadership has a big impact on the politics behind these events, and its safe to say we have been missing the effective followers we need in bureaucracy and congress that will begin to fight this system of inequality.

Leave a Comment

In this article, Zinn challenges modern mythology that shrouds our contemporary understanding of the American struggle for independence and equality. Instead of a fight for freedom from a tyrannical, monarchical rule, Zinn explains how colonial elites persuasively manipulated and mobilized the working classes that were needed to garner the support to challenge England. Working classes were used as pawns in the elite struggle to establish a new, privileged ruler. They used persuasive language and propaganda in order to unite the masses with colonial elite, mobilizing this workforce by exercising ideas of enlightenment and equality. However, the colonial elite made sure to maintain the distribution of wealth and power among themselves, and effectively restrained the poor when they became too enthralled with ideas of democracy and freedom. The interest in the lower classes was only taken when the elite realized they could use these people to their advantage, which they accomplished in doing so. It is also important to note that many were entirely excluded from this mobilization attempt, such as women, who Zinn notes were seen as politically invisible. Native Americans and African Americans were also outside this sphere of influence and were seen as groups that needed to be suppressed since the British were trying to incite rebellions among them against the colonists.

 

This article explains the foundation of American hypocrisy and the effort of the elite to mobilize working class voters to their advantage. This act has taken place over the entire course of American history and can be even seen in political debate today. Republican and Democrat politicians have both used their privilege and influence to use the working class to benefit their own priories and maintain the status quo of wealth and power. Donald Trump’s huge gains in the Midwest in the 2016 election parallel the issue Zinn discusses. Trump’s campaign to put America first and pull back the reigns of the progressive Obama administration  won him great support among white working class that had previously voted democrat. Despite low unemployment rates, Trump’s tariff policy against China has hurt these same rural agricultural workers and followed the arc of Zinn’s argument. This is nothing new. Many forms of political leadership throughout history demonstrate that those who do not have a voice in the affairs of the state are regularly exploited, manipulated, and ultimately end up paying the price for forms of political or economic revolution.

1 Comment

In this article, Miller describes the permanent and temporary inequalities, and explains some of the relationship dynamics between subordinates and their dominants. Miller explained how often since the very survival of the subordinate depends on the decision making of the dominants, those inferior will become acutely aware to the tendencies and character of those above them. By excluding them from positions of power and delegating them the work that nobody else wants to do, the dominants take away any semblance of feedback from their subordinates. They keep the subordinates in these positions and offer them no agency, molding them to fit the stereotypes they wish to enforce. The dominants do not understand their inferiors, but the inferiors understand the dominants, but not themselves.

An example of this conundrum is vividly explained in Richard Wright’s Native Son, a book I read in my FYS last year. As an impoverished, young black teenager living in Chicago, Bigger Thomas is frustrated that his girlfriend and his mother do not fight back against the system in the same violent manner that he does, but his is blind to his own reality since he begins to fit a sterotype that the white politicians and media of Chicago assign to young black men. Author Richard Wright described Bigger as living behind a veil- he could see the powers that exploited his family, but these powers could not see or understand him. Wright built these ideas off of famous African American scholar WEB Du Bois, who wrote about the double consciousness of black Americans.

2 Comments

The STU article provided a very interesting example of how and when transactional leadership is needed. In order to achieve a goal, most people need routine discipline and structure. A reward-penalty system can be very effective in motivating employees/followers since it establishes and promotes a culture of fairness since employees will be rewarded for meeting and exceeding required expectations. The article also discusses how these immediate self needs that followers seek to address, such as paying bills and buying food, are most often met through transactional relationships. This is also similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, since followers and people in general will have a hard time reaching levels of self actualization or self transcendence if they are not meeting basic physiological needs that are usually accomplished through transactional relationships.

The context ultimately decides which leadership style is more effect. Of course, Couto and STU article both note that no leader is either one type of leader or the other, they will often use both transactional styles and transformational methods. However, the goals a leader wants to accomplish will dictate which side they lead to and how they will interact with their followers. I liked the transactional leadership method discussed in class today about congressmen/women- we vote for them, and in exchange hope that they will represent our views on the national level. I think politicians can also be transformational leaders in the sense that they seek to change the ways followers think and use inspiring rhetoric to elevate them to a higher moral ground. What a “higher moral ground” is, is still a big question since the field of leadership studies is relatively new, many of these definitions are subject to the eye of the beholder. As the field of leadership studies develops, these definitions may change, but many moral and ethical questions will still remain relative to the person who is actually making the decisions.

Leave a Comment

In both of these articles, Spears and Greenleaf discuss the concept of a “servant leader.” This is someone who has a natural inclination to serve first, and then because of their inclination to serve, leadership is bestowed upon them. Spears notes that this concept can be quite contradictory, but Greenlead argues nonetheless that our country is in a leadership crisis and needs more servant leaders. I think Greenleaf brings up a great point about education and the impact it can have on cultivating the servant leader. Educating students about world politics and problems, and what they can actually do to make a difference will equip young people with the tools to serve first and then lead. As discussed in class, these two positions are not often used together, as we tend to think of leaders as decisive, strong, and unwavering. Often times, emerging as a leader can require great confidence and ambition, making it unlikely that a leader remains humble and chooses to serve the people.

Both Spears’ and Greenleaf’s arguments made me think of the statement released by The Business Roundtable, some of the most powerful business CEOs and chairmen in the world, who believe corporations have a different purpose than their lifelong promise to answer to shareholders and shareholders first. CEOs like Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos are redefining the purpose of a corporation, arguing that more attention must be given to the quality of life of employees, environmental impacts of the business, and addressing the needs of the customer. This is a huge shift in the way CEOs have thought and is a contradiction of fundamental principles of capitalism that stress maximizing profits and keeping shareholders happy above all else. It is possible to argue that as the wonders of globalization and technology reduce our conceptions of time and distance, and climate change becomes an increasingly important issue, powerful business leaders must see themselves as stewards of the world’s environment, its people, and its resources. These are very big ethical implications, implications that are traditionally left out of economics. However, judging from the wealth inequality in the US and realizing how much money and influence companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon have, it would be nice to believe that future business leaders will follow the model of servant leadership. Hopefully that’s not too idealistic.

2 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

 

Last night I attended Dr. Andrew Solomon’s talk on Radical Compassion at the Modlin Center. He opened up the night by discussing his own gay identity, and the ways in which gay rights and the public stigma towards this group has changed in the past fifty years. Dr. Solomon had a great way of putting it-  the only thing that transformed something that was deemed to be an illness, into a legitimate identity and an active community, was radical compassion. He remarked upon his experience with different disability groups as well, doing considerable work with dwarf and deaf children and their families. He noted how many times the people who have been challenged the most will often develop the most compassion due to their previous understanding of the feeling of being isolated, alone, and different. Although Dr. Solomon was not a dwarf or deaf, and did not wish to be, his own identity of homosexuality helped him empathize and understand these marginalized communities. Another great point that he explained was that walls between people, whether being physical or existing as a metaphor, are symbols of individual safety, but simultaneously oppress and imprison us. The only way to overcome these boundaries, stigmas, and stereotypes, is travel. This can mean international travel, but it can also be as simple as traveling to another house in your neighborhood and getting to know people there. Conversations build relationships, and relationships break down walls.

I think Dr. Solomon’s talk had some very important implications on both international and local levels of leadership. It is crucial to the leader’s success that they are able to understand the perspectives of their followers in economic, religious, cultural, and political senses, just to name a few. However, like Dr. Solomon notes, this is not an easy process. Truly understanding the perspective of another requires a degree of vulnerability, honestly, and selflessness that many humans are scared of. I think the media often feeds us misrepresentation or “shadows” (thanks, cave allegory) of what different people are like, and in this way technology is dividing us more than it is bringing us together. A leader with radical compassion will seek to understand the intersectional identities of his/her followers, and will also work to use their global influence to better understand the history, politics, and religions of distinct peoples all around the worl

Leave a Comment

This evening I attended Dr. Katie Hafner’s lecture The Origins of the Internet. Her discussion outlined the work of several brilliant creators and inventors, including JCR Licklider, Paul Barran, and Larry Roberts. These men, among others, all played integral roles in the creation of the Internet in the later half of the 20th century. The inkling of computers and connected terminals and nodes emerged after the Soviets launched Sputnik into space in 1957. In the following year, the US Department of Defense opened up a new branch now known as DARPA, intended to research high level and cutting edge military technology. DARPA brought along prominent scientists and psychologists such as JCR Licklider, who helped create the first terminals. These giant, monolithic terminals had no way of communicating with each other until Paul Barran championed the idea of packet switching, which would eventually set the stage for modern technological communication. Packet switching, in its simplest terms, breaks up the originally sent message, sends bits and pieces throughout different networks, and eventually reassembles the message at its final destination. The Department of Defense’s creation of ARPAnet now allowed for online communication. Another important concept to understand in the formative stages of the Internet was that it was intended to be able to survive a nuclear attack. Early schematic drawings by Larry Roberts showed how the software was wired to route around the damage, and could actually still function and communicate in despite of the nuclear threat.

One interesting point made by Dr. Hafner that connects to our class is the idea of the time being right for a certain invention or change to take place. Often, we think of great inventions and leaders as emerging from the bottom and inciting a great change. The emergence of the Internet should no doubt be credited to the diligent and genius men and women who made such a feat possible, but it is also important to recognize that the Cold War was an era in which great funding and attention was given to the Department of Defense. At the height of the Cold War, the innovation and the technological advances of this department were not just seen as a triumph of American democracy and Western Science, but they were also seen as imperative to American survival. Without such a great conflict, the Department of Defense may not have received such great funding and attention, preventing prolific men like Licklider and Barran from conducting their research. The timing, and the cultural context of the 1960s and well into the 1980s played essential roles in the degree of importance that was associated with created a communicable, online network, one that would change human society forever.

Leave a Comment

In this episode, the hosts of Lady Science bring up several interesting points about the discussion of women in history, particularly in regards to the Great Man Theory. The hosts of our podcasts subscribed to a version of history very different than the Great Man Theory, believing that history is not shaped by the feats and leadership of an individual, rather it is shaped by larger movements in which class and gender play an increasingly large role. I really liked in the beginning when the hosts discussed the larger existential questions about the field of history, such as ‘what even is history”, “who decides which stories are told”, and “what stories do we not know?” The idea of history as a selection process leaves out a lot of information, and I think one way to explain this selection process is that our modern, more colloquial field of history is not the accurate rendition of factual information, but resembles somewhat more of an entertainment platform. Studies of great battles, deadly war, and powerful men are entertaining and are more widely known than the stories of smaller, marginalized communities. Great men in these stories have often been created into larger than life figures, men who wielded immense power and ushered in eras of serious change. These stories are entertaining, but they leave out many integral people and events that played a big role in human history. This also calls into question: how important does a person have to be to be a historical figure? What does “important” mean? Is there historical use in recording “the people’s history?” The work of more modern scholarship questions the real meaning of history and tries to tell the unknown stories of women and minorities that have not received as much attention.

The hosts also make a strong effort to not simply substitute a singular woman into the spotlight of the “Great Man Theory.” Their thinking is similar to some of the ideas we have discussed in class about how easy it is to attach an entire movement to a singular figurehead (like MLK and Civil Rights in the 60s). Due to our own human nature, we want to praise the achievements of a singular man or woman, rather than looking at the entire movement they were a part of and the people who helped them become so famous. Of course, this requires historians to delve much deeper into a time period by looking not just at the individual, but also at the environment and people who supported them. This is a contradiction of the Great Man Theory. I think it was interesting as well that the podcast hosts were so critical of substituting any well known woman in the place of the Great Man Theory, believing that this does not solve the issue. I am not quite sure as to why the hosts seem to expend so much energy fighting critics on Twitter, (people whose opinions will not change by a tweet) but they seem to be dedicated to the cause of unearthing gender and social movements that played a larger role in modern science than any one person ever could have.

2 Comments

Last night I attended Dr. Kaplan’s discussion on the electoral college. Dr. Kaplan was not interested in changing our opinions of the current system, or persuading us to adopt a new one, but he rather explained the effects that new proposed presidential election systems would have on our political institutions. He made a great point, where he mentioned that shortly after losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college, President Trump was asked if he would still have been elected POTUS if the Electoral college was done away with and the president was selected by a purely popular, direct vote of the people. Trump answered “I still would have won, and I would have won by a whole lot more.” This quote, regardless of whether Trump still would have won or not in a purely popular vote, is very important because it demonstrates that the electoral college has a huge effect on the way politicians campaign. Kaplan notes that we can’t just scrap the system, and expect the same results: such as believing that Clinton still would have won the 2016 election. Without the College, Trump would have campaigned in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and Clinton would have campaigned in Texas! The Electoral College shapes much of what we understand about American partisanship, regional political identities, campaign strategies and the locations candidates visit. While a simple concept in itself, it has very complicated effects into all branches of American government. This was not something I had previously thought of as I was under the impression that if not for the electoral college, surely Gore would have won in 2000, and Clinton in 2016.
The electoral college is intricately tied with the leadership qualities, and strategies of our candidates. In different types of potential electoral systems, such as a direct popular vote of the people, Kaplan examines the issues that arise, such as the even greater vulnerability of American people to toxic charismatics, like Donald Trump. In a system where the delegates are selected on a proportional basis rather than the winner takes all system, this cultivates coalition building between party lines, which is something that is currently having immensely detrimental effects on European countries, specifically the UK. These different types of systems would force candidates to campaign extensively in mass media markets, empowering the role of the media and promoting the already dangerous relationship between politics and social media. If there is a change that needs to be made to our election process, Dr. Kaplan did a great job of showing how this would affect, and radically change the way political and social institutions operate in the US, a potential change that could cause even greater divides than physical boundaries of congressional districts.

Leave a Comment

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.

1 Comment

In this reading, Carson describes Dr. King in a very different manner than he is often thought of today. I liked how Carson emphasized just how much of a controversial figure King really was, and that if he was still alive today, he would not nearly be as popular as modern scholarship and history perceive him to be. This gives readers an idea of just how radically different Dr. King’s ideology was in the 1960s and helps us understand that he risked, and ultimately lost his life in order to preach and spread the ideals he believed in. While history today looks at King’s movement as an example of courageous activism and praises the ideals he was fighting for, I think Carson’s piece explains that if the modern people of today who praise him actually lived in King’s time, they would not see him as this static, mythically constructed figure who can do no wrong. When Carson explains the way history today views King, he compared him to larger than life figures such as George Washington, people who are seen as untouchable in American history. This metaphor helped me understand the difference between modern scholarship about King, and the actual perception of him in the 1960s, two very different schools of thought.

 

I think it is also important to note that King had an understanding of his shortcomings, and he was adamant about having his followers think for themselves as opposed to blindly following him. This is an example of leadership that deviates from the traditional charismatic model, and I believe that differentiating between these models of leadership can have serious implications when evaluating the ethical and moral values and intentions of our future leaders.

3 Comments

Hero- Fallen Responders to attack on US Diplomatic Compound in Benghazi, Libya

Leader-

Role Model-

Leave a Comment