Author: Sean Bailis

Joshua Kaplan gave a great presentation on the current state of the electoral college as well as some proposed alternatives and their effects on future elections. The way he presented his own opinion on the electoral college was actually quite comical but very effective. He said that if the constitution were to have gone missing and a new one had to be written, he doesn’t believe that anyone in their right mind would come up with a proposal such as the electoral college, especially when considering the possibility of what is often referred to as “the faithless elector”. Interesting enough; however, electors have only voted against their states candidate 167 times, which is not that much considering the 538 every single election.

There were 4 total presidential election change proposals that Kaplan presented, two of which just modified how the current electoral college system works and two that were basically versions of the national popular vote. Given the results of the past election, currently, democrats tend to be in favor of the removal of the electoral college and republicans tend to be in favor of the current system. One of the Democrats’ main arguments is that rural states have more say per person than those in states such as California or New York. So, Kaplan presented the results of the previous election if every person were represented in their state equally and the results were shocking; it would have been essentially the same. Trump would have lost 3 electoral college votes which is negligible due to the substantial amount that he won by. Kaplan also discussed a version of the popular vote that would have, in fact, caused Trump to lose, but unexpectedly, using that specific system, Mitt Romney would have actually won in 2012.

When it comes down to it, there is no perfect way to run presidential elections, because all of the proposals have flaws. History has also shown that people don’t really have an opinion on the electoral college until it negatively affects them. If Trump were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college in 2020 it is extremely probable that partisan stances on the issue would flip. This doesn’t surprise me at all honestly, politics have always been about convenience, and I’m not sure that will ever change, unfortunately.

Leave a Comment

I recently watched the Sean Theriault lecture and it was extremely interesting, to say the least. I really enjoyed some of the data that he presented, a lot of it was very insightful in understanding the current state of the senate. He clearly demonstrated a very strong understanding of what he was talking about and was well informed to answer questions very thoroughly.

A very clear polarization in our national government is occurring. The current Congress is on track to be one of the least productive in history, which isn’t at all surprising. What did surprise me was that the people most willing to compromise on either side of the “aisle” weren’t necessarily the most moderate ones, rather a mix of moderates and those with very strong political ideologies. I think that this actually says a lot about the people that need to be voted into office. When people are looking for candidates that will get things done, willingness to work with others as a trait is much more valuable than being more moderate.

One of the aspects that gave me hope is when he talked about some of the great bipartisan relationships that have been made over the years. I think that if there were more strong relationships between leaders that disagree, congress would be so much better off. Walking out of the capitol building every day with arms over each other’s shoulders is a great reminder that they are all working with the same goal in mind, the betterment of the U.S. At the end of the day, a lot of important things count on the production of the US congress and without their success as a body, it will be hard for any change to ever come about.

Leave a Comment

I have always found the relationship between the media and the white house very interesting. It is completely understandable how the white house could get very frustrated with a group of individuals who are monitoring their every move and criticizing every mistake made. I also believe that the importance of an accountable media is underestimated. They are the sole connection between politicians and the people that they govern and one of the only institutions that keep politicians in check.

In the reading, it discussed how many presidents and presidential candidates throughout recent history have believed that the media has been against them. This includes candidates from both sides of the political spectrum from Hillary Clinton to George Bush and Bernie Sanders. This notion made me realize that the media, as a whole, is not really for anyone because that isn’t their job. The media is responsible for calling out faults more than it is responsible for giving praise. I think its particularly easy to call out the media for being biased, though I don’t believe its accurate. Because there are two sides to the current media, with some channels being conservative and some being liberal, the news is not really consistent anymore which makes it hard for the people to decipher what is really going on within the government.

That being said, media also has to be held accountable for being accurate. Not often to media channels go out of their way to make any corrections on mistakes that they have made, which I think is a major problem within media. I also think people have to reconsider what actually is news. When people begin to take sources such as Breitbart and Huffington Post for news, that’s when problems arise and people’s idea of what is actually occurring becomes skewed. In other words, when people start listening to what they want to hear.

3 Comments

Last week, I attended a c-suite conversation featuring Don Godwin, the chief financial officer of Newport News Shipbuilding, the largest manufacturing employer in Virginia. The interview had an emphasis on leadership in the business world. He had some really great things to say, some of which revolved around what we’ve talked about in class. Though he didn’t use any textbook terms that we have gone over in class, he talked a lot about the importance of staying in touch with what was happening at the shipyard, where the overwhelming majority of employees at the company work. He talked about visiting the shipyard often to see how things were going, and that he much preferred the visits that the shipbuilders did not know he was coming. This was because he said he viewed himself as equal to them and did not want to see a show put on for him, rather wanted to see the shipbuilders working as they do normally. Not only do I think this statement said a lot about him as a person, but as an executive leader as well.

Godwin also spoke briefly about the importance of having different minded executives. He gave some details about what made him and the CEO very different, yet explained why those differences become so useful in collaboration and coming up with new ideas. This made me think about the importance of different types of leaders within organizations. Though an organization or movement usually has one face that represents the movement, there are so many more important and influential leaders that make huge impacts, but they just are not in the limelight. I overall found the discussion very interesting and I thought he had a lot of great things to say about business, ships, and leadership.

Leave a Comment

This video certainly opened my eyes to what happened domestically during the Vietnam War. I knew the protests were a big deal but I did not quite understand the magnitude of them until now. It was interesting to see who the leaders were during these protests. I know he didn’t see it through to the end, but the video showed a clip of MLK talking about the war in Vietnam, something I did not know he was fighting against. As a college student now, it puts a lot of these things into perspective. The firing upon students from the national guard at Kent State particularly bothered me. The situation had so many parallels to the Boston Massacre once I thought about it;  protesters throwing things at the people with guns and no order to fire. History certainly does repeat itself. I think the clip of soldiers throwing their medals said everything that one would need to know about how most Americans felt about the war by the time it was over.

I think there’s a lot of comparisons that can be drawn between how divided the country was then and how divided we are now. LBJ referred to the silent majority of Americans who he believed would be in support of the war in Vietnam. Trump focused heavily on the silent majority of Americans who are thought to have won him the election in 2016. The country was so polarized, similar to how it is now. One of the things that confused me the most was why it took so long after Nixon’s election for the war to end, considering he campaigned on ending the war. This just goes to show that campaign promises not being kept are nothing new. I think the protests demonstrate the power of dissent, and I think it’s great that dissent has power in this country and can get results with enough persistence. Though if I have to be completely honest, I think attempting to raid the Pentagon was just stupid.

1 Comment

Coincidentally, I have read both of these short stories before; however, being that they are so interesting and that I forgot some of the details, I definitely did not mind reading them again. The lottery has a particularly slow build-up, then there is so much that happens so quickly at then end with Tessie getting stoned. It isn’t really revealed what the lottery is all about until the very end, which is great for building suspense. Anyways, on the leadership side of things, I have so many questions. It isn’t really clear who enforces this, rather it seems that the village does it every year out of pure ritual. Given how many years the lottery had taken place, it makes me wonder why no one ever took a stand to stop it. I think it’s particularly interesting because the village members aren’t being submissive to a person or a group, rather just an idea/ritual. It makes me wonder whether the village is subject to very severe groupthink.

The story of the Omelas is another really mind-boggling one. The setting is first introduced as this wonderful place by the sea in which there is a life of perfection for all of its residents. Who wouldn’t want to live there? However, once it is said this is only possible because of an imprisoned and tortured child who never sees the light of day, it flips the entire story upside down. Of course, the biggest question then is whether you would live there knowing that your happiness is based on the misery of a child. This question could be debated upon for hours, and there is not necessarily a right answer. Nobody would want to be the one tortured, but it comes down to whether or not you could live with yourself knowing the reason for your happiness. Many people in the story decide to leave after they are told about the child, but many decide to stay as well. Does leaving make you a better person than one who stayed?

4 Comments

Zinn’s reading regarding slavery without submission was truly an eye-opening read. I found the quote from a slave talking about singing and dancing at night after a day that he had been whipped particularly inspiring and extremely grateful for the good life I’ve been born into. His ability to be positive in such an awful situation awes me. I think it was really interesting that a majority of slave owners were afraid of rebellion, yet they tried to make it look as if they weren’t. The fact that religion was used as a means to control was particularly disheartening to me. Reading portions of letters from slaves who were separated as a family really got to me; the injustice done during this period is truly immeasurable. I think Harriet Tubman wanting freedom or death, and nothing else, says everything one would need to know about how awfully slaves were treated.

I find it interesting that in the Jim Crow era, the Communist Party was associated with the defense of young black men imprisoned. I think many people would definitely try to use this to their advantage because if there’s anything all Americans hate, it’s Communism. It is disheartening that Truman’s decision to establish a Civil Rights committee was more of an economic decision rather than a moral one. This coincides closely with what we were talking about in class a lot on Thursday regarding various presidential actions that were, in fact, political more than anything else, such as the emancipation proclamation. It seems like everything important has been up to the Supreme Court in recent years, which is sad given the executive power of the presidency. I find it surprising that the scenario regarding klansman attempting to raid Robert William’s house isn’t used more often in the second amendment debate actually. What happened in Birmingham in 1963 sounds so similar to what is currently happening in Hong Kong today, and when taking a closer look, both groups are fighting for very similar things, both of which involve true freedom. It’s sad that dreams have to explode for change to come about, unfortunately, but if explosions are the only things that have the ability to incite change, then so be it.

2 Comments

This reading changed the way that I looked at the events leading up to the American Revolution completely. This I think is partially due to the very strategic way that American made textbooks want us to think of the revolution as this very precise and united action to break off from a tyrannical England; the true underdog story. However, after this reading that it was largely based on wealthy colonist’s desire for an even larger fortune, there was a lot of individual interest, not this united interest like it is always made out to be.

There was certainly a fair share of riots prior to the revolution; however, not only in protest to England but much smaller scale riots against individual wealthy colonists as well. It appears that severe economic equality has always been a problem in the US. I did think it was interesting that the author pointed out the hypocrisy in Thomas Jefferson’s proposal of eliminating slavery in the Declaration of Independence, for all the same reasons that we previously discussed earlier in the semester. I didn’t realize just how influential Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was at the time. One of the reasons it was so particularly effective in promoting independence is because of its ability to appeal to multiple economic demographics. In order to win a war, you need people to fight in it. And because the wealthy simply bought their way out of fighting, they needed the support of the middle class and poor. Though I am still just as glad the Revolution happened for the sake of my own existence, this reading opened my eyes to a new perspective and way to view the events leading up to the shot that was heard around the world.

Leave a Comment

Miller presents a very compelling argument surrounding the role and place of a “superior” party and a “lesser” party in society. I found the section about temporary inequality, generally in reference to age, particularly intriguing. I never really looked at the inequality in the relationship between a child and their parents, though Miller is absolutely correct, I just never saw it in this way up until this point. Permanent inequality is definitely a lingering problem in this world that continues to not be resolved, and in comparison to temporary inequality, I think permanent inequality is much larger of an issue. I liker the way Miller says, “Power exists and it has to be taken into account, not denied”. This very adequately demonstrates that power is inevitable, so we just have to learn how to deal with it better, which is something I think the study of leadership focuses a lot on.

The reading about dissent provided some interesting points regarding the subject. Dissent can come from any side of the political spectrum, the left, the right, and even the middle according to the reading. They then go into discussing dissent in the workplace, where I think it will be most applicable to many of us in the future. Some of the information they present surrounding the cause for dissent could be particularly useful to employers as well. I do think that the ability to express dissent in this country is what makes it one of the best countries in the world, and it is also something that keeps us, as citizens, involved with politics and government without necessarily being a part of it. Dissent causes change and change inspires innovation which allows our nation to persevere through difficult times. And though dissent usually comes as a result of failed leadership, I believe it has the ability to, in turn, create success.

 

3 Comments

I found the comparison between transactional and transforming leaderhip particularly interesting. Transactional leadership I found is what I typically think of when I think of a leader; the typical relationship between a politician and their constituents. This relationship has a sort of mutualism aspect to it, where both parties rely on the relationship for success. However, what particularly caught my eye about this form of leadership was that it is not binding, and so my mind immediately went to thinking of all the unkept campaign promises of presidents throughout history.

Transforming leadership became very obvious to me to be the better and more useful form of leadership. The idea that both parties, the leader and the followers, constantly raise one another to a higher standard appears to be much more beneficial, particularly to the leader. A leader who proves that he can learn from his followers presents an element of humility which I believe to be invaluable. I like the way that Burns refers to this type of leadership as “dynamic”. People who build dynamic relationships with others have a much better chance of changing someones life, and if a leader can inspire one to change, she can certainly maintain their following, and even inspire them to become leaders themselevs and start their own followings. Transforming leadership has the ability to change the world because it inspires.

1 Comment

I really enjoyed reading some of the arguments that Ruscio presented. He talks about humility and the act of being humble as a part of personal character that can be effective, not necessarily calling it an important aspect of leadership. He describes humilty as something that has to “come from within”. I could not agree with him more. Similar to what we talked about last class, from what I’ve gathered in this reading, it appears the best way to appear humble is to actually be humble. Humility is something that has to be built in character, not something that can be taught in a leadership seminar.

I found his story about George Washington particularly fascinating. Being that Washington is someone that we’ve said had been turned into a legend over the accumulation of time, I’ve never seen Washington in this sort of light. The story that Ruscio presents is something you definitly would not find in your common APUSH textbook because it doesn’t really fit Washington’s persona as this savior and winner of the American Revolution. Washington in a way humbles himself by asking his men to forgive him, and given that the men apparently were sobbing afterwards, it was clearly quite effective. This is a strategy that was also used by the current Pope Francis in his first address as Pope, when he asked to the people to pray for him.

I love one of the other examples Ruscio shares about JFK and his failure with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Not only did JFK the next day acknowledge and accept responsibilty for his faults, but he also humbled himself by asking former President Eisenhower for advice. The fact that he realized that he needed the help of a military leader such as Eisenhower demonstarted that JFK was human just like the rest of us. The changes he made due to Eisenhower’s advice and the acknowledgement of his own mistakes said a lot about him as a man that the American People really appreciated, and also helped him bring an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was very important to say the least.

1 Comment

I found the cave allegory to be very interesting, mainly because I think some of its underlying themes are extremely applicable today. Perception is such a major aspect of politics today that I don’t really think many people take into consideration. More than what a president, or any political person of power, does, good or bad, public opinion is based on how they come across and how they make the public feel. In the cave, they would have never realized that what imprisons them is nothing more than a bunch of mere puppets, and I think that in society today sometimes we need to get up and change our perspective in order to get an idea of what’s really going on in the world.

At least for me, the Gardner reading changed my perspective on the importance of the role of a follower in light of the successful leader. I like how he discussed the relationship between a leader and the followers, whom he groups into one sort of entity. He presents the idea that the most successful leaders are the one who can foster the intellectual development of their constituents, enabling them to become even more substantial contributors to that leader’s movement.  This also creates followers who can take initiative after the leader is gone, and this whole idea of creating a legacy that will impact future generations is something that I think is very often overlooked. Leaders can do some great things, but if they don’t have anyone to continue their efforts after they are long gone, then, in my honest opinion, it was all for nothing.

2 Comments

Wow. What an interesting historical story. Charles I is said to be made out to be this honourable and righteous man, “but it was this very sense of righteousness that was his undoing”. I see nothing righteous in a man or a king who takes attacks on his policy as an attack on him personally. Once I read that Charles was a man who thought he was a voice of God solely because of his “divine” right as king, I knew there was blood to come. Anyone with this sort of belief should not be in charge of anything, they are toxic to say the least.

As depicted in the articles, Charles I was truly “a man of blood” who had goals that took absolutely no consideration for the lives of the innocent. This man had the audacity to quite literally start a second civil war in the hopes of reclaiming the thrown. For this reason, I absolutely believe that he deserved to die. I see this man in the same light as John Wilkes Booth. Both of them attempted to reignite a civil war within their country as a part of the losing side, the only difference being that Booth failed to do so. And because Charles I efforts actually resulted in a second civil war, I believe his actions are worse than those of Booth.

And finally, because he refused to plea during the duration of his whole trial, I have absolutely no sympathy for this man who thuroughly believes he did nothing wrong. Charles I is a coward.

4 Comments

I find the fact that there is no one agreed-upon definition of charisma fascinating. Charisma is something that I think most people can understand in an abstract sense, yet it is so difficult to describe, in words, exactly what it is, and precisely what makes a person charismatic. The reason I believe that charisma is so hard to definitively define is that charisma, in layman’s terms, is more so a “vibe” you perceive from someone, not something necessarily discernible at first glance. There is a multitude of traits and factors that make one charismatic, such as being animated, confident, enthusiastic, ambitious, and inspirational. Only demonstrating one of these traits does not make someone necessarily charismatic. Yet, perceiving someone to be charismatic somehow makes them all of these things, as well as credible, whether they are or not. This perception of charisma is what makes people that hold the trait some of the most successful leaders in history. 

The spectrum of charisma also appears to be very polar in nature. I believe that most people would agree that one is either charismatic or not, there is not much of an in-between; someone who is slightly charismatic. What is fascinating, though, is that people who are more reserved and in fact, less charismatic are drawn towards people who are charismatic, similar to the relationship between sheep and their shepherd. On the contrary; however, the most charismatic leaders immerse themselves in their followings and often portray themselves as being “one of them,” despite quite obviously being very different from the rest of their following.

The idea that one of the first definitions of the word, in a religious context, means “a divine gift of grace,” particularly intrigues me. It explains a lot about one of the most common perceptions of charisma as a component of character. The word “divine” implies that the trait is given by God himself, giving it an element of unattainability, contrary to things such as intelligence or responsibility, which can be developed with age and discipline. However, seeing that children often turn out to be the product of their environment, I find that the current perception of charisma could not be further from the truth.

 

1 Comment

Leader – Andrew Yang

Role Model – Andrew Carnegie

Hero – Abraham Lincoln

 

Leave a Comment