A line that really resonates with me in Ruscio’s piece was “They were not perfect. The point, though, is not how we see them. What matters is that they saw themselves as imperfect.” (Page 10). After outlining a few concrete examples including Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington, it is very moving to see how Ruscio explains the imperfections of these great leaders who we consider such heroes. Just because these leaders had flaws has no bearing on how we consider these leaders to be some of the most iconic leaders in \u00a0history. This line also reminded me of the significance of a leader’s ‘relatibility.’ If a leader is too perfect and pristine and flawless, his or her followers could easily be intimidated by him or her and not feel a strong connection which draws the followers to follow. A leader who is humble and shows flaws is automatically more relatable to an audience and will likely have more sway over the audience’s opinions.<\/p>\n
For example, when Ruscio mentions the Trump presidency, my first thought was that there seems to be a disconnect in this ideology when discussing Trump as a leader. He is not at all humble; he was born at the top and stayed at the top and is very aware and open about this fact, yet his supporters seem to perceive him as a man who represents the common American. Despite his disturbingly wealthy background and frequent outwardly narcissistic and ego-centric comments, poor working-class citizens are more likely to support him and his ideas than those who are wealthy and educated like he is. He technically should not be a relatable leader, but somehow is. My best guess is that though Trump does not view himself as imperfect and views those who are poorer than him as inferior to him, his supports perceive him as imperfect and relatable. It is certainly interesting to think about how Trump utilizes humility and relatibility to gather support, even if it is an act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A line that really resonates with me in Ruscio’s piece was “They were not perfect. The point, though, is not how we see them. What…<\/p>\n