Clearly, Shakespeare had a deep knowledge of historical and pop-culture events that allowed him to write in-depth and thought-provoking plays during his time. One of these was Richard II, a historical play about Richard II (clever title, right?). What is unique about this play is that it seems to be relevant during all time periods. There is always the problem of establishing legitimacy for leaders, and there will always be dissatisfied a dissatisfied public (at least partially).
I immediately noticed a connection between the content in Richard II and the 2016 presidential election. In both, there is a power grab from an outside individual, whether that by Henry, who was not initially in a position to grab power, or Donald Trump, who had no previous experience in politics. Both leaders were viewed as a solution to problems that fell under both of their previous leaders, and both found legal ways to become a formal leader, despite possible opposition from the public. It is true that legitimacy and popularity are tightly connected since both mentioned leaders became large debating points. Trump’s ability to win the presidential election, despite losing the popular vote is a partial reason why his legitimacy may be questioned. One of the main differences between the leader-follower relationship in Richard II and America today is that it is much more difficult now to overthrow a leader. Legally, Trump is a legitimate leader, but if he begins to lose popularity, then there is the option to elect another more popular leader.
This relationship between legitimacy and popularity has another recent example with the election of George W. Bush. Like Trump, Bush also lost the popular vote but was still able to win the electoral college. Over time, like most presidents, Bush’s popularity declined, but he was able to improve his popularity with the start of a “war” – the War on Terror. There is a clear connection between this and Henry’s grab for power. When Henry’s legitimacy was questioned, he started a war as well. This constant connection between popularity and legitimacy gives rise to leadership practices that might not be in the best interest of the public. History seems to be a constant cycle between ruler and usurper as the legitimacy of leaders ebb and flow with time. This poses the interesting question of leader emergence vs effectiveness and their relationship, but that might be for another class.
As it is not very common for a president to lose the popular vote but win the election, it would be interesting to explore what other qualities can deem a president to be illegitimate. Do the people, who vary in knowledge on the subject of politics, determine which candidate is legitimate or the electoral college, who are arguably experts in their field?
I really liked your comparison to George W. Bush. It was an interesting parallel to a more modern political scenario. In both cases, the leader starts a war as a means of justifying their position of power. It was also worth noting how transition of power is much better now than it was. Rather than assassinations and wars, most unpopular leaders are deposed via election.