The Power of the Masses
It is commonly argued that leaders are great not solely by their own virtues and characteristics, but because of the support they received from the people around them; their family, friends, and their community. Martin Luther King for example had the support of his wife and kids, who had to sacrifice up their time with him so that he could lead his followers. On top of that foundation, are organizers who gather the masses. Then there are the people that show up to the rallies and give their time to participate in the rallies and truly take MLK as their leader for the fight for civil rights. Basically, there were many powers that brought MLK to the forefront and made him a leader.
Ghandi was basically the same. There was a dire need for a leader, people were looking to someone for guidance, and he was the man of the hour. Leadership seams to be very circumstantial. MLK once spoke about being swept into his position as a leader and this is also mentioned in Cullen's book The American Dream. You can see this happening quite easily. You become somewhat of a figure in your community, then you become the voice of a people, then you become the guiding light for a people and there you are, a leader with incredible power that you may or may not know you truly possess.
Which brings me to my next point. How much power does a leader have over his actions after a certain point in his leadership? MLK took the route of compassion and nonviolence. We could easily argue that MLK had a very effective method. But what if a leader took the opposite path? There are plenty of leaders that have.
I'm in no way trying to absolve any of the wrong-doings of these leaders because they are initially at fault, but just imagine this:
Hitler started his campaign. It was a campaign against Jews, filled with hatred and intended discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, (Rick I'm looking your way because you know more about this than any of us on the blog) but did Hitler intend to kill six million people at the beginning of his leadership?
What if he started his leadership with this hatred, convinced the nation to take him as his leader, and then was sucked in by the power of the masses? His method was hate, and as his nation's leader, they looked to him for direction. After a while, I could see the masses controlling him, as opposed to the other way around. After you instill a certain amount of values into a large group of people, they will look to you for direction on how to follow through with these values.
If Hitler were brave, (assuming he hadn't brainwashed himself by now), he could have told his followers that he was wrong, and killing people was not the answer, but he would have been killed himself by his people.
Which leads me to my question: If Hitler knew at the beginning of his leadership, maybe even before that, that if he took his position, it would lead to the death of six million innocent Jews, would he have taken that position? This applies to every leader in our history. If they truly knew the power they would yield, would they have taken the responsibility? It doesn't change anything, but it is an interesting way to look at history (keep in mind that historians generally hate the "what if" game).
posted by Dollars and $ense at 3:07 AM |
2 comments
2 Comments:
Steven, I too agree with the neo-realist idea that once certain conditions become filled, they play out with little choice involved on the parts of the leaders or wills of the country, to varying degrees which are based on that nation's power. On the point you bring up about Hitler, his intention beforehand seems to have been racial extermination. "Mein Kampf," his manifesto which gave him a lot of credibility by those who would become the Soviet Socialist Party, was filled with criticisms of the Jewish way of life (specifically usury), calling Jews vermin and rats that needed to be exterminated/cleansed in order to regain the glory of Germany. It's not so much that the masses mandated he do so, it was that they accepted his goal, and allowed him to do whatever was necessary to achieve said goal.
Taking this in a different direction, this is the exact argument which for me indicates that Kerry would be just as tough on terrorists as Bush. IF there was another attack, it's not as though either leader would differ in their responses to that attack. Kerry would have attacked Afghanistan just as quickly as Bush because of the public outcry. Bush then used a lot of political capital to drive the American people to war with Iraq (demonstrating that leaders do have a significant degree of control through the use of the bully pulpit), whereas Kerry may have focused on other problems, or whatever (it's impossible to try to guess at this point).
Basically I think you're half right about how leaders lead. At some points, when there is a public outcry, leaders can draw vast amounts of power and legitimacy by being in the right place at the right time. Conversely, it is most often not the case that peoples are in dire need for leaders. Most of the time, people just want someone to keep the economy growing, crime down, and taxes at a minimum. When times are like this, and people are selfish because they live in times of excess, politicians have freedom to control their paths.
October 30, 2004 at 3:17 PM
Zafar, concerning what you've said, I disagree that most lI certainly believe this is the case with some of the crazier, eccentric leaders of our time (Hitler being a prime example). However, thinking mostly in terms of the American Presidency, I think that any politician seasoned enough to get to the place where he or she might be electable understands the game they play. They understand the budgetary restrictions which they've criticized in incumbents, they know not to fuck with social security or face losing reelection, they know that good doesn't always win, and that America can't always be the "good."
Most politicians, however, try to sell themselves as being outsiders of the system, trying to institute reform from within. That's why Wilson, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II were/are so appealing, and it was the basis for Perot's campaign; they all look like political outsiders who know nothing of the evils of politics and would stand up to such evil if confronted with it. That's how they are forced to sell themselves to have a chance at election. This year, we have a nominee doing something slightly differently; John Kerry is characterizing himself as someone who understands politics and the game necessary, but "actually" has good intentions for fixing it. The result of this odd combination: distrust, and if Kerry loses, that will be why.
October 30, 2004 at 3:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home