Skip to content

Comparing Present-Day & Historical Leaders

In Issac Butler’s article entitled,“Did Richard II Provoke an Elizabeth Rebellion,” Butler discusses the implications stemming from Shakespeare’s play, Richard II, and their effects on the second Earl of Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth in 1601. The day prior to Essex’s attempted rebellion against the queen, his men had paid to present and attend a showing of Shakespeare’s play Richard II. Richard II tells the story of Henry IV’s rebellion against King Richard II, who was a corrupt and unfavorable king, and how Henry managed to take over the throne for the betterment of the nation. Some argued, including the crown, that this act of attending this particular play was meant to signal to the nation of England that corrupt leaders, whose actions paralleled the actions of their current queen, were successfully overthrown in the past and that they should support Essex’s efforts to do it again. 

This kind of propaganda that Butler discusses is enacted in the form of a comparison between Queen Elizabeth and a formerly disliked leader. This kind of comparison of a present day leader to a previously disliked leader in history is something that still occurs today. Comparing a leader to a widely disliked historical figure is an effective way to prove a point of why a present day leader is “bad.” During the 2016 election of Donald Trump, comparisons between historical leaders, tyrants, and dictators and Trump were frequently made in the media. Articles illustrated parallels between Donald Trump and Hitler, Stalin, and other unethical and disliked public figures throughout history. If an article proves a few strong points of comparison between Trump and Hitler, for example, then the only conclusion that can follow, given one accepts this premise that these two are in fact very similar, is that Trump is just as terrible of a leader as Adolf Hitler.

Although some of these comparisons may seem far-fetched and some people may not accept the comparisons made, resulting in additional rejections of the conclusions made, this can be an effective method to rally support against a leader. Having seen these kinds of articles during the election myself, I know personally that I was shocked by the comparison points demonstrated in these kinds of articles, and I was fearful of what this could mean for our country. This shock and fear left with the readers of these articles may resonate with them when thinking of President Donald Trump thereafter; therefore, it is a strong form of propaganda to employ. The Earl of Essex’s method of using it continues on throughout present day, and maybe one day a future leader will be compared to President Trump in a similar fashion.

Published inUncategorized

4 Comments

  1. Nicolette Romley Nicolette Romley

    The notion that propaganda rallies support against the disapproved leader rather than for the approved leader is an interesting one that you pointed out. People focus on drawing negative correlations between Trump and other leaders, which we have all heard by now, rather than drawing parallels between a new candidate and other successful leaders. Perhaps we tend to focus on this cycle of negativity because it gets more media attention than when we speak positively about leaders.

  2. Katherine Fell Katherine Fell

    The points that you make about propaganda in the political sphere are very relevant. I also find it interesting how similar strategies are also used to attack public figures on the other side of the aisle. For instance, during the 2016 election, Trump infamously called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman,” attempting to respond to her attacks on his policies and his character while playing up the stereotypes that people make too often against women in positions of power. Using propaganda against others is a tradition that has lasted throughout the centuries and will not stop anytime soon.

  3. David Ataide David Ataide

    Your points comparing the Earl of Essex’s use of Richard II as propaganda to the comparisons made between Donald Trump and infamous dictators actually really help put you in the shoes of a leader like Elizabeth I. By making the connection to a modern day scenario, we as a reader can better understand what must have been going through the mind of people like the Earl of Essex or Elizabeth I. I agree with another commentator that this method seems to only sensationalize negativity and doesn’t comment on any positives.

  4. Sara Messervey Sara Messervey

    Yes! The phenomenon you’re describing of hyperfixation on negative leadership comparisons reminds me of Raven’s negative referent leadership that we learned about in Theories and Models. These kinds of comparisons are extremely powerful and have been used often to influence perceptions of leaders in politics. I love seeing the connection you made between these leaders and tying in this model of influence dating from now back to the early 1600s. It definitely contextualizes our growing body of leadership theory. It is propaganda, as you have stated, and it has really powerful implications for culture’s impact on political leaders, and much like the English monarchs of the 1600s, how much power leaders have in controlling the way these comparisons are presented to us as cultural consumers.

Comments are closed.