Charismatic Leaders

-
          I've been thinking about Porfirio Díaz's presidency as we have been talking in class, and I've been thinking about his characteristics. Professor Stark said he was a super charismatic guy who never forgot a name or face, and therefore could forge personal relations with people. These skills or characteristics are really beneficial when it comes down to it. I never realized the pull that those attributes can give a politician or a candidate. Since he remembered people's names and faces, I'm assuming the people of Mexico originally thought that he would be a great president. That probably gave him a big edge over any competitor (even though the elections were not necessarily free from fraud). 
          This has made me think a lot about how charisma affects politicians today, and it still does seem to have a lot of pull on people's opinions. I can't speak in facts about this because I haven't seen any stats on it or anything, but this is just what I've observed. Former president Obama is what I would consider a charismatic man - he smiled a lot, was kind to people, and was genuinely well liked by people. This generally made people like him as a person even if they didn't agree with his politics (just speaking from observations - I know there are people who do not like Obama in any way, shape, or form). Now we have Donald Trump as president, and the opposite seems to be happening. He is not what I would describe as a charismatic man - people have described him as unpleasant, he doesn't have a filter, and sometimes doesn't seem to think before he speaks. This has made people who even agree with his politics to be a little wary of having him as president, because they're worried about numerous things like what he's going to say and how he will handle foreign relations. It has made those who oppose his politics dislike him even more, while some of those who do support him to be afraid of what he's going to say next. I wonder how things would be right now if their personalities were switched - would there be so much opposition to Trump and so much support for Obama? Would things be the same? How much does politics and political support revolve around a person's agenda as compared to their personality?
          Again, I can't say anything really solid on this topic because I don't know either of these men personally and can only go off of other people's experiences and what the media shows me, which can be biased towards one person and against another. I also can't go off of facts because there aren't any solid facts. This is just what I've noticed, and I find it really interesting how a person's charisma and personality can play into their election and their politics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liberation Theology: Bringing the Church and Religion Together

-
          During Professor Stark's lecture on Monday, there was something that really caught my attention, and it was the concept of Liberation Theology. Professor Stark defined it as "using religion to empower people to change the world" (my notes), which I think is an interesting concept. I further researched it, and the definition further expanded. Liberation Theology calls for the "true" followers of Jesus to work towards a just and fair society by bringing about social and political change. It is actually a combination of Christian theology and Marxist beliefs that strives to relieve political and social oppression from the oppressed of society.           The reason that this caught my attention so much was that, to me, it finally seemed like the Catholic Church was acting in how I view it should. Throughout history the Catholic Church has been a business, seemingly only interested in their own gain. They even functioned as the ban...
Read more

Making a Mexican Identity

-
          In Professor Stark's part of the class, the discussion of Mexico has seemed to have one common motif throughout the whole conversation - the struggle to create a national identity. But, from hearing the state that Mexico was in at the time, it is not surprising that they were struggling so much to create a unified identity. There were two parts of that struggle that really stuck out to me - the sheer size and spread of the land that they were trying to unite, and trying to incorporate the indigenous into their society.           The amount of territory that Mexico used to possess blows my mind. It was such a huge expanse of land, so much so that the climate and geography differed drastically from one area to the next. In all of present-day California, there were a total of 3,000 people. I put that into perspective for myself by thinking about the fact that there were 1,200 students in my high school alone, being the smallest o...
Read more

The Construction of the Helpless Female

-
          The political cartoons that we have been looking at for Professor Serrata's part of the class really have me thinking. I keep thinking about Cuba being portrayed as the "damsel in distress" and what that signified and continues to signify today. In the context of the time period (the late 19th century to beginning 20th century), we can understand a bit that yes, women were considered to be inferior to men, and yes, this accurately portrays what the illustrator was trying to say about Cuba. But what is sad is that even in our 21st century mindset, we can still see that - that Cuba is portrayed as a woman because, in a lot of cases, women are considered to be inferior to men. This is not how it should be!           This even relates back to way in the beginning of the year when we talked about the difference between sex and gender, and how gender is really just a construct that we as people of the society have dictated. But it i...
Read more