Author: Reva Henderson

I went to a Marshall Center Lecture series. Joshua B. Kaplan was the speaker for this event. Kaplan works at the political science department at Notre Dame. Kaplan talked about the consequences of electoral college reforms that have been proposed. He states he believes the electoral college is not good. He stated that even the biggest fan of the electoral college would use it if we started over. He talks about how each proposal has its own bias. He believes these consequences could be worse than what we have. He talks about the electoral bias is in its geographic location. One of the revision plans is the Automatic plan which states we would keep electoral votes but not the electors. Each state would get the same amount of votes.

I found this lecture very interesting because we can see in elections how one candidate might win the popular vote nd the other the electoral vote. The one with the electoral vote will become president. These seems to be odd considering a majority of the population wants a certain person. During the time of the constitution this was used to suppress the masses because the elite didn’t want them to have to much power. You can also see during elections which states usually vote a certain way. This makes the electoral vote easy to get for the candidate of the party that state favors.

Leave a Comment

I went to one of the Marshall Center lectures where Raymond O. Arsenault spoke. He is a professor of southern history at the University of Florida, St. Petersburg. He lectured on Author Ashe. He wrote a biography on Author Ashe. He wrote the first biography on him. Author Ashe was a great tennis player but Arsenault focused on him as a person. He was born in Richmond and was alive during the Jim Crow era. He was unable to stay in Richmond and left to go to Missouri.

He was the first African American to go on the mens tennis tour. He was alone during this time and was playing during the civil rights movement. He worked hard to integrate Richmond into the desegregation movement. He tried to get an African American hall of fame. He had to come out after his career and tell the public he had aides. He then became an aides activist. There is now the Author aides foundation.

Leave a Comment

I went to hear a Jepson Alumni, Sean Theriault speak about congress and how it has changed over the years. He is a political science professor at the University of Texas. He spoke about two main points. He talked about the difference in how senators have been voting over the past few years as well as which senators are most likely to vote along party lines.

He showed a graph that shows how a decline in bipartisanship and an increase in grid locks. He talks about a rise in senators that vote for their party in order to get votes to get into the Congress. There has been a rise in outrages politicians because of the political climate. People are upset with the government so they vote in people that they believe will bring about change. However, these radical politicians actually make it harder to bring about change.

Leave a Comment

I thought this essay was very interesting. It brought up food points about democracy and the state of our government today. I found it very interesting that he brought up how our government has changed over the years and is not as efficient as it use to be.

The government today is very polarized. This is a problem when someone tries to pass legislation. I found the comparison of the political parties to sports team very effective because it seems like each side is trying to win now, not help the people out. I agree that in order to have a better government and society there needs to be change. Our democracy was created in a different state of society and changes need to be made. We can not live in the past and except it to work for the future.

2 Comments

I find the idea of in groups and out groups very interesting. I think people often think about the groups they identify with a lot, but don’t think as much about the groups they don’t identify with and why. I also think it was interesting how the in groups identifies them selves and their means of doing so. It’s important to look at the common things a group has and what forms each group. Also why the groups form.

I think that this can be applied to large scale and small scale groups. Whether it be a certain friend group to a whole racial group. I think it’s important we understand the types of groups we are in as well as other people to try and understand our own and others identities.

2 Comments

I thought it was very interesting to learn about the women’s suffrage movement in context of the civil war and civil rights. I found it very interesting that the two movements worked together up until the 15th amendment was passed. I can see why women would be upset that they were not given the right to vote when it gave all men the right to vote. I found it interesting that Douglas was working with the women’s suffrage movement until this point too.

I found it interesting that the 15th amendment caused a division within the women’s movement itself. With one group wanting to wait decades after the 15th amendment was passed to talk about a women’s right to vote and others wanting to be included in the 15th. I think that women should have been included in the 15th because they are equal to men.

Women were given the right to vote after WWI . Women were forced to take the position of men and were capable of doing their jobs. This showed women were equal to men and forced the nation to pay attention to the movement.

2 Comments

I found it very interesting to find the origins of Jonestown and the people’s church. At first it started as what seemed a good idea. He wanted to create real and good change in the US. I had never heard that he started as a good leader. Then he started to use his power for bad instead of good.
I see him as both a tyrant and unethical charismatic leader. He was charismatic enough to get a huge following and convince his followers to believe in him. He convinced many many people to pick up their life’s and follow him blindly. Where I see him transition from serving his followers to being a tyrant is later off in his teaching. He started using his followers for his own personal gain and whatever he desired instead of helping create change like he originally did.

3 Comments

One thing I kept thinking about while reading this is transactional leadership doesn’t seem like leadership to me. To me it seems much more as interactions between certain people at a certain time. There may be a difference in power but i don’t necessarily see it as a leader follower relationship in the examples Burns gave, except elected officials. However with elected officials some people may give them their vote not because they follow them but because they see them as the best option in a bunch of not great options. They do not fully support them.

I think with transformational leadership is where you start to see a leader follower relationship develop. It takes time for this relationship to develop not just a one time thing. It takes multiple interactions.

1 Comment

I find the idea of servant leadership is very interesting. I thought it was very interesting that Greenleaf said a servant leader must start out a a servant then come into a position of leadership. This brings into question of a servant becomes a leader. I think a servant starts as serving and becomes an example for people and gain a following. They show others how to serve and share their goals with their followers.

I also found it interesting to look at the list of characteristics of a servant leadership compared to the list of charismatic leadership qualities. Both mention the idea of listening to their audience. Listening in regards to a servant leader involve growth of them selves and their followers. Where as a charismatic leader listens to their audience more so by reading it and adapting to it. Both use veriations of persuasion, foresight and many other similar qualities with their audiences. This makes me wonder is a person can be both a charismatic leader as well as a servant leader.

1 Comment

Machiavelli brings up many points as to how to be a great leader. He discusses many ways a leader can rule their people. Machiavelli talks about how to become a ruler, then how to stay on their thrown. Machiavelli through out his paper talks about many opposites that can keep a ruler in charge, but they must choice one side of doing things.

Machiavelli brings up the arguement is it better to be feared or loved by your followers. I believe the answer to this question is both and also lies with the responsibility you hold. For some leaders such as bosses and CEOs they must have the suppport of their workers but also must remain in charge. The question also comes up alot in parenting is the question, is it better to be their parent or their friend. Again one must be both to grow a healthy relationship.

If a leader is very loved they have the respect of their people, but may not always have their obidience and control over them. For a prince he must be able to control his country so he may choose fear. However if the people are scared of their leader they may not trust them. This will lead to many problems for a prince and his country.

3 Comments

The podcast talks a lot about history and how we view and tell it. The podcast talks about how women in history are often overlooked and how we only remember a couple “important” ones. The podcast also talks about how science is often overlooked in the field of history. Science is one of the most important parts of history. Science helps us progress and created the modern society we know. The podcast touches  on the lack of women remembered in history for science.

It brings up the important message that we have failed as a society to write and equal history of women and men. Women have made many great discoveries and done important things, but they are not equally remembered. We need to remember and teach the next generation to do better.

4 Comments

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.

3 Comments

I think it was very interesting how Martin Luther King did not seek out a leadership position but was rather thrown into one. Under the circumstances of the time he took the call to action. This made me thing about the nature vs. nurture debate. MLK used the circumstances and feelings of the people and causes he stood for to nurture the skills he needed to be a great leader. He was able to symbothize with his audience which captivated many many and increased his following.

A question I had while reading about MLk is: Is he a charismatic leader or servant leader or both? MLK shows all signs of being a charismatic leader. He also served along side his followers in the fight agaisnt segregation. He served the cause and lead it as well. Can a leader be both charismatic and a servant?

4 Comments

Hero

Leader

Role Model

Leave a Comment