Author: Eliza McCarron

Archer begins the article by explaining that while Trump’s attacks on the news media have gotten a lot of attention, he is not the first president to have issues with journalists and try to control what the media publishes about the government. The tension between the government exists because the media’s job is to give the public the information they need, which sometimes means exposing information that the government may not want everyone to know. According to Archer, this tension is natural and has existed since the beginning of the United States. She compares Trump’s criticism of the media to Nixon, who also called the press “the enemy of the people” and even sued the New York Times for publishing information about the Vietnam War. By attacking journalists’ credibility, politicians can detract attention from the issue being reported about and prevent it from influencing followers away from supporting them.

Despite this long history of tension between the government and the media, Archer argues that Trump’s attacks are unprecedented. One reason for this is that his attacks are extremely public. While Nixon had similar views about the press to Trump’s, most of his inflammatory comments were made in private. However, Twitter has given Trump the ability to attack the media much more publicly and frequently than any other president. Archer also talks about how attacks on the media have exacerbated divisions within our society because when elites question the media’s credibility, it “creates a permission structure for citizens to dismiss anything they disagree with as fake news.” These divisions have led to an increased demand for news outlets with partisan bias such as Fox News and MSNBC.

1 Comment

Last night I attended the Jepson Leadership Forum presentation called “The Internet as a Weapon.” The speaker, Yasha Levine, is an investigative journalist whose family came to the United States as political refugees from the Soviet Union when he was nine. He started his presentation by talking about how the internet was used to interfere in the 2016 election. For many people, this represented a turning point in the role of the internet in society because it was the first time that the internet was used to influence a political outcome. However, Levine said that in reality there has never been a time that the internet was not used as a “weapon” of influence. I found this really surprising because I always thought of the 2016 election as an example of the internet’s increased capabilities, but according to Levine the internet has always been able to have such significant influence. He talked about technology being used to influence military operations as early as the 1960s, which was crazy to me.

Something else that stood out to me was that Levine talked about how in his community of immigrants growing up, the United States and its technological developments represented a new world of possibilities for the future. However, we have not lived up to these ideals. To demonstrate this, he showed an image of a new Apple facility being built and a homeless man sitting in front of it. He showed this picture several times throughout the presentation. I thought that this picture was very powerful because it shows that even though technology has created so many opportunities, these opportunities haven’t been available to everyone.

Leave a Comment

I learned about the Vietnam War in high school, but before watching this video I didn’t know that much about the resistance taking place in the United States. The beginning of the video talks about how the draft was supposed to be an “equalizer” because all men over 18 were required to be in the draft but the loopholes to get out of the draft, such as getting a deferment to go to college, were more accessible to wealthy people. During a demonstration at an induction center, a protester told men who were there to register for the draft that “if you’re a white, middle-class, Dean’s List kind of guy, you have nothing to worry about.” This really stood out to me because it highlights the inequality in the draft process. A disproportionate number of those sent to Vietnam were black and/or lower income, which I never knew. I also did not know that MLK participated in protests against the Vietnam War, but what he said about how the United States spent $322,000 on each enemy killed in Vietnam but only $53 on each American classified as poor also stood out to me.

Something else that I found interesting about this video was that President Nixon’s response to the anti-war protests was to increase the divide between those who supported the war and those who opposed it. He did this by portraying protesters as unpatriotic and sending in the National Guard to demonstrations on college campuses. This didn’t really make sense to me because one of the ideals of America is that we have the right to express our opinions about what the government is doing, even if we don’t support it.

 

1 Comment

On Tuesday I attended the Sharp Speaker Series presentation “The Race Card.” The speaker, Michele Norris, is a journalist who worked for NPR and became its first black female host. In 2002, she wrote a memoir called The Grace of Silence about her experience with racism. The main focus of her talk was her project that she started in 2010 called “The Race Card.” In this project, she strives to create a platform for people around the world to talk about race by having anyone submit a response online about what race means to them in six words or less.

During her presentation, Norris gave an example of the work she does on a daily basis by reading through some of the responses that she receives, which to me was the most interesting aspect of the project because of the diversity of responses. One of the comments that stood out to me was “Father was racist. I’m not. Progress!”. I found this comment interesting because to me it felt like this person does not understand that  just because they as an individual are not racist does not mean that race is not a significant issue because many people are still openly racist. However, it is difficult to judge this person’s views based on a six word online comment because we do not know why they think that way.

Norris also talked about the fact that many of the responses she receives are from white people, and that the variety of responses can lead to a more productive discussion, which is one of the goals of her project. For example, people of color who have grown up with racism as a part of their daily life may be surprised to read comments from white people about how race is not an issue anymore because they have such different experiences.

Leave a Comment

In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the city of Omelas seems to be a perfect place where all the people are happy. However, halfway through the story we learn that this “perfect” place only exists because of the child who is locked away and abused. Everyone knows that the child is there, and parents usually tell their children about it when they are between the ages of 8 and 12. When they are told about this, many young people want to do something for the child, but are told that they can’t because that would ruin the entire existence of Omelas. I think that this story is a good example of groupthink. People in Omelas accept that this one child will have a horrible life because they are taught to believe that it is for the good of everyone else. When anyone wants to do something for this child, they are told that letting the child out would actually be making their life worse, which is another way that the group justifies its actions.

In “The Lottery,” the village draws a name from a lottery on June 27 each year, and whoever’s name they draw will be stoned to death. Everyone in the village accepts this as a tradition and shuts down any criticism of it. When someone mentions that several other villages nearby have ended the practice of the lottery, Old Man Warner calls these villages a “pack of crazy fools” who are giving the young people too much influence. Once Tessie’s name is drawn, she protests, but the people in the village still go through with stoning her to death. Reading this story, I noticed a lot of similarities to the Hunger Games books/movies. I also thought that this story was a good illustration of groupthink. Because this event is so public and a long-standing tradition, no one wants to be the first person to question it no matter how many people are uncomfortable with it.

2 Comments

I thought this week’s readings were extremely interesting. Zinn talks about the abolition movement before and during the Civil War. In the 1820s and 1830s, there were several slave rebellion attempts that were unsuccessful and led to the execution of those involved, which was supported by the federal government. These rebellions caused tension within the abolitionist movement because some moderates thought that the rebellions actually set back the cause of emancipation. I thought it was interesting that poor whites were paid by plantation owners to oversee slaves while they worked and prevent them from running away. This reminded me of the Miller reading on domination and subordination. Although the circumstances of poor whites were not at all the same as slavery, they were in a position of inferiority relative to the wealthy. Overseeing slaves allowed them to act as the dominant group.

The article also mentions that Lincoln only began explicitly advocating against slavery once abolition became in his political interest. He even refused to denounce the Fugitive Slave Law and argued that the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution prevented the federal government from outlawing slavery in the states. He also did not believe that black and white people were equal and that freed slaves should be sent back to Africa. While I did not know this before, I actually wasn’t that surprised to learn that Lincoln held these views, because it seems like every major historical figure has done or said extremely problematic things that we never hear about.

Something that also stood out to me in both articles was the reluctance of the government to make any real change until there was some other political or economic reason for it. For example, President Truman wanted to address civil rights issues in order to maintain a good appearance on the international stage. It makes me think that in order to make progress as a society, we cannot only rely on elected leaders.

Leave a Comment

This article talks about some of the class tensions in colonial America during the time leading up to the Declaration of Independence. While the majority of the American Revolution leaders that we learn about today, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were wealthy, they needed to convince the poor and middle class to join their cause in order to be successful. One way that they were able to do this was through Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense. Paine was very specific about the colonists’ grievances against the British, and used language that would create a feeling of patriotism between people of all classes. Paine himself was an immigrant who had grown up poor in England, so he understood how to appeal to working class people better than other revolutionary leaders.

I thought it was interesting that several of the revolutionary leaders were upset by Common Sense because although they wanted a more egalitarian government, they “wanted to make sure it didn’t go too far in the direction of democracy.” The author seemed to be arguing that they used poor and middle class people when it was necessary for the cause, but then once they achieved their goals they returned to living separate lives. For example, when a political group in Boston called the Loyal Nine needed rioters to get the Stamp Act repealed, they organized a special dinner for the rioters. However, once the Stamp Act was repealed due to this resistance, they severed these connections and did not invite the rioters to any celebrations.

1 Comment

In Miller’s article, she talks about the difference between temporary and permanent inequality. Temporary inequality exists in relationships where one person has qualities that they are expected to teach the other, and this gives them authority over the other person. One example of a relationship with temporary inequality is the relationship between a parent and a child. Miller seems to think that temporary inequality is somewhat acceptable because even though one person is in a position of authority over the other, they are also supposed to be serving the subordinate, and I agree. For example, parents make decisions that children are not mature enough to make for themselves. When children become adults, they continue to have a relationship with their parents, but it is no longer a dominant/subordinate dynamic.Permanent inequality is inequality that exists on a much larger scale and is based on characteristics that we cannot control such as race, class, or gender.

The second article about dissent reminded our class discussion on Thursday about groupthink. Cheney and Lair argue that there is “a great deal of fear about entertaining views outside whatever functions as, or is defined as, the mainstream set of positions at the time.” This is happening not only on a societal level about significant political issues, but also on a smaller scale in workplaces and communities. This also made me think about the expectations created by dominant groups that Miller discusses in her article. Subordinates are discouraged from expressing any dissenting opinions about the structure of society. I liked how Cheney and Lair laid out concrete strategies for encouraging dissent at the end of the article, both on a large scale and in our daily lives.

 

2 Comments

Last night I attended Derek Thompson’s presentation “Economics and Influence in Digital Spaces.” I found this talk extremely interesting. Thompson started by talking about how companies that don’t charge users for their services, such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, are making a profit every year while companies who do charge for services, such as Uber and Lyft, are losing a lot of money. The reason for this is that these free websites make their money through advertising. Thompson said that advertising has contributed to misinformation being spread on sites like Google and Facebook because they will do anything for our attention.

Thompson also said that this idea goes all the way back to the 1830s, when a 23-year-old named Benjamin Day started a newspaper called the New York Sun, which only cost a penny and made the rest of its money through advertising. The New York Sun published a story about how scientists had seen people living on the moon. While this was obviously false, many readers believed it, including people who were very well educated and knew logically that it couldn’t be true. I thought it was very interesting that he used an example from the 1800s because we think of fake news as a problem that started with the rise of social media. Thompson also talked about how attention-based platforms like YouTube benefit extremists, and how easy it is for us to fall into their trap simply by clicking on videos in our “recommended for you” column.

His last point really resonated with me. He said that social media has caused a lot of anxiety in young people because we can now see how many options are out there for us, which seems like a good thing, but can be very overwhelming. It also gives us the ability to see what other people are doing at all times and compare ourselves. We know rationally that what other people put online is just the version of themselves that they want people to see, but it is still difficult not to compare yourself to what you see on social media.

 

Leave a Comment

Burns claims that leadership “unlike power-wielding, is thus inseparable from followers’ needs and goals.” I thought that this was interesting given that one of the characteristics of a charismatic leader is that they are understanding of and responsive to the needs of their followers. We tend to think of charismatic leaders as different or extraordinary, but Burns defines responsiveness to followers as a skill that all leaders should have. He then explains the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, which is that transactional leadership “occurs when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things,” while transformational leadership is when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.”

According to Bass, society in the last few decades has created a need for more transformational leadership rather than transactional, which I thought was really interesting. I learned about the differences between transactional and transformational leadership in my Leadership 102 class last semester, but I had never thought about this before. Bass argues that after the Cold War, skilled professional jobs became more common, and these educated professionals began to see each other as equals rather than in a supervisor-subordinate relationship. As a result, managers had to find a way to foster autonomy and challenging work in order to provide job satisfaction for their employees. Bass explains a similar trend in the parent-child relationship. In previous generations, parents taught their kids to respect authority without question, while parents today teach their kids about taking responsibility and advocating for themselves. Thinking about the way I was raised vs. the way that my grandparents were raised, I think that this is definitely true.

1 Comment

Ruscio talks about the importance of humility in leaders, particularly in a democracy where their power is constrained. I really like the example that he gave about JFK and the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy understood that he had made a mistake and was able to address the nation immediately and directly. He presented the facts and explained where he went wrong without trying to make excuses for his mistakes. He also recognized that he needed help, so he asked Eisenhower for advice, and he used this advice to change his decision-making strategies.

The beginning of the article talks about how even though humility is so important, it goes against the way that we think about leadership today. We expect leaders to be “firm, decisive, authoritative, strong, assertive, steadfast, visionary, and powerful. Humble usually doesn’t make the list.” While these traits are good for leaders to have, I think that neglecting to consider a leader’s humility is a big mistake, particularly in a government like ours where we have such a long tradition of democratic institutions. Ruscio later talks about the contrast between Trump and JFK/Washington/Lincoln. He seems less concerned about Trump being arrogant and more concerned about his disrespect for the institutions that are the foundation of our democracy.

This article also made me think about how our politics have become so polarized. If leaders don’t have humility, then it will be very hard for them to debate and make decisions with people who don’t agree with them. In order to come to decisions, there needs to be compromise, which will not happen if no one is willing to admit that they are wrong.

2 Comments

In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, prisoners are chained to the wall of a cave. The only thing they can see is the shadows on the wall, so they believe this to be reality because it’s all they have ever known. Socrates suggests that if one of the prisoners were to break free, see the real world, and share what he saw with the other prisoners, the other prisoners would reject his ideas and try to kill him. This idea reminded me of a conversation in my Justice and Civil Society class yesterday about how one of the reasons why issues like racism and sexism are so difficult to overcome is that it is extremely difficult to challenge such widely held opinions that have been around for a long time. Even if they are trying to make society better, people who challenge the status quo usually face a lot of resistance.

Something that I found very interesting in both the Mabey and Gardner articles is that the authors both argued that the perceived separation between leaders and followers, and the idea that people in positions of authority are automatically leaders, is actually an obstacle to solving problems. If the leader does not understand the needs of their followers, and the followers believe that the leader is the only one who can make change, then the group will have a lot of trouble getting things done. Mabey says that in order to change this idea, “socialization in homes and schools must include the recognition that every citizen will lead. Civic participation is not an elective but a given. Every person matters.” I think that if kids are taught this in school, then they will eventually take a more active role in causes they believe in because they believe that they have the ability to make change even if they are not ever in a position of authority.

Leave a Comment

After reading the articles about the execution of Charles I and the circumstances leading up to it, I think that he did deserve to be executed. I was very surprised that I felt this way because I am against the death penalty, and in my blog post last week I wrote that I didn’t believe tyrannicide was the best solution for getting rid of a tyrant leader. However, in this particular situation, I don’t think that there were many alternative solutions that would not have caused more instability in England, which had already gone through a massive civil war due to Charles’ conflicts with Parliament.

The article outlining the arguments for and against the execution of Charles I points out that Charles surrendered to the Scots in 1646, which ended the civil war, but he was not executed until 1649. During these three years, he was given the opportunity to negotiate a lasting agreement with Parliament and return to his position as king. However, he was not willing to do this because he was extremely stubborn and believed that “his conscience was the voice of God.” This difficult personality was what caused him to have so many problems with Parliament in the first place. Rather than try to make compromises, he convinced a Scottish faction to invade England and help him restore the throne. This would have caused a second civil war when thousands of people had died in the first war a few years earlier. To me, this shows that he was not ever going to change if he was given the chance to rule again, and England needed to get rid of him definitively.

 

Leave a Comment

Tyrannicide, or the idea that killing a tyrant leader can be justified for the good of the public, is a very controversial idea that goes all the way back to the Ancient Greek and Roman periods. According to Andrade, “like it or not, tyrannicide does form part of the American ethos,” and we are even teaching kids that tyrant leaders should be killed through movies like The Lion King. While I agree in theory that killing a dictator is justified if it will save the lives of many people, I think that in reality it is much more complicated than that and tyrannicide is ultimately not beneficial in most cases.

One reason that I believe tyrannicide is not a good solution in the long run is that the outcome is extremely unpredictable. It can lead to instability if there is not a viable replacement for the tyrant leader who is not also a tyrant. Andrade uses examples from both ancient and recent history to demonstrate this. In the case of Julius Caesar, which is also discussed in the George reading, Brutus’s plan backfired because after even though Caesar was killed, emperors came to power shortly after, and these some of these emperors were even worse tyrants than Caesar. In the modern Middle East, the deaths of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, who were both brutal dictators, have not made Iraq and Libya have led to extreme instability and creation of other terrorist groups.

Another reason that I think tyrannicide is not the best solution is because tyrant dictators are rarely acting entirely alone, they are usually part of a larger movement or group. If the leader or figurehead of the group is killed, someone else who shares the leader’s ideologies could easily step in, and people would not be any better off.

2 Comments

Before doing this week’s readings, the term “charisma” is something I had heard many times, but I had never thought about how to define it. According to Riggio, charisma is “the special quality some people possess that allows them to relate to and inspire others at a deep emotional level.” Charismatic people tend to be emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. I thought it was interesting that the word was originally used in a religious context to describe figures such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed, who were widely considered to have divine characteristics that allowed them to influence and inspire their followers. This idea sounds almost identical to the Great Man Theory, which is that some people are born with certain characteristics that inherently make them better leaders. 

Something else that I found interesting in this reading was German sociologist Max Weber’s theory that the key to charismatic leadership is the relationship between the leader’s qualities and followers’ belief in both the leader and the leader’s cause. Weber also believed that leadership context was very important and charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge during chaotic times. This is something that we talked about in my Leadership 102 class last semester. Given the qualities that many charismatic leaders possess, Weber’s idea makes sense because people might be more likely to seek out a leader with these qualities in times of uncertainty.

One of the questions that Riggio is asked in the Psychology Today interview is whether he thinks leaders are born or made, and his answer is that “this isn’t something that requires my opinion, but this question has been well researched. Twin studies by Richard Arvey and his colleagues have estimated that leadership is about ⅔ made and ⅓ born.” This stuck out to me because in class on Thursday, we discussed the same question and there was a wide range of opinions, so it was interesting to learn that people have done studies and come up with a numerical formula to explain where leadership traits come from.

3 Comments

Role model (mom):

Leader:

Hero:

 

 

 

Leave a Comment