Journal Number Six
2/16/17 0–1.5
In class we discussed how leaders cultivate an image to give off certain vibes like leadership, strength, or thoughtfulness. This was the goal behind the representations of Alexander the Great. All forms of art that represented him had a particular look and feel to them, one would see it and instantly recognize it as a portrait of Alexander the Great. This idea of a picture representing the character of leader continues even to today’s modern president. We looked at Donald Trump’s Twitter and his picture was one where he was attempting ( key word) to look thoughtful,serious, and convey strength. While Trump failed at conveying this image it’s something commonly done by leaders especially authoritarian leaders, look at leaders like Putin, Kim Jong-Il, and Robert Duerte. All of these leaders pictures constantly attempt to display strength in their official pictures. For these leaders they have successfully portrayed themselves as strong men and each of these leaders are admired and beloved by their people much like Alexander the Great. You asked us what we would wear on our own official image. I would want to to be wearing a suit and glasses and attempt to look studious and professional and hearken back to Malcolm X in many of his famous pictures. I would want to look like an old school black visionary. We also talked about the types of rhetoric, rhetoric is one of the most dangerous weapons that currently exists. Donald Trump for all his incompetence has shown himself to master of rhetoric. Trump has been especially effective at using pathos and emotion to drill fear and anger into the hearts of all Americans. Trump used these skills perfectly to get his supporters to come out in droves to win the presidential election in shocking fashion. He scared them by saying we were under attack from illegal immigrants who were intent on harming us, we were loosing all of our trade deals, and that our military was weaker than it had ever been. He also had ethos (or character) a certain bravado or swagger that I believe was greatly admired by both men and women in his party who felt like he could do no wrong and that the media and “liberal elites” were turned against him unjustly. But now one of the most interesting prospects is after you’ve faked your way to the top how do you stay there and what do you do. We’re finding out now.
Module Reading 2/19/17 1.5–4
This Module was about the political machinations in Rome during the Catiline conspiracy, and how it was derailed by Cicero and the mistress of one of the conspirators. I’m not sure how I feel about Catiline, what he wanted to do besides all the murder of officials who had opposed or beaten him was a rather noble ideal. Redistribute land from the wealthy to the poor and disenfranchised, and cancel all debts( which would’ve been extremely advantageous to him) and start anew. My problem is the Catiline seems to be very self righteous claiming he’s acting on behalf on the poor and trying to free them from debt and help them own land but he’s really trying to help himself. Even though Catiline was noble he had amassed great debt and hiring a rest button on wealth would serve him greatly while taking land would decrease the wealth of those richer than he like Cicero. But Catiline could’ve abandoned his rebellion and just fled somewhere to live out his life when he saw the tide was turning against him but fought till the bitter end, to me that means he must’ve truly believed in his cause or very very badly no longer wished to be poor. I will say on the topic of Cicero’s “genius” discovering Catiline's conspiracy it doesn't take much of a genius. Fulvia the mistress of one of the conspirators who was also poor and in debt told Cicero of the repeated attacks that would be made on him and on others who would oppose Catiline. So if Fulvia had not been so money hungry or greedy Cicero would almost assuredly have been murdered and Rome overthrew. So i find it peculiar that she gets no significant face time in this story to discuss her further or delve into to her motivations any deeper. I will commend Cicero because seemed to be a true statesmen and citizen of Rome he seemed to only want to protect Rome( and himself from assassination) and keep the city out of the hand of tyrants. I don’t agree with his decision to execute the treasonous five he found without trial though. The true test of ones law and constitutions is meant to be exactly that when there is treason and betrayal that is when constitutions and laws must stand the strongest when the urge for a simple ending must be forgone and the defendants must receive the rights that they are guaranteed as citizens. This is a ideal that we in America might have to become acquainted with rather quickly as Donald Trump’s administration continues to implode and as more leaks about Russia continue to happen.
2/21/17 Tuesday Class 4–5.5
In classed we discussed how Rhetoric had been used so far by the figures we have studied for ancient leadership. Achilles and Agamemnon used invective speech to attempt to exert dominance over each other. While Nestor playing the peace make uses deliberative speech to try weigh both sides of the argument and then to make a decision. Mark Antony used epideictic and deliberative rhetoric to set himself up as the heir to the legacy and therefore power of Julius Caesar. While reading this module I did find it ironic how Cicero who wanted to stand against tyrants at all costs ended up supporting the future undisputed because he murdered all his rivals Octavian. I wonder if Cicero saw where Rome was headed and though Octavian best to lead or if he really thought tyranny could be avoided in Rome. I find it interesting when those who steadfastly oppose an idea end up supporting someone who’s the antithesis of said idea. That’s part of the reason I find the Russia controversy with Trump so interesting. For the last 8 years Republican leaders have gone on Sunday morning talk shows and blasted Barack Obama for being to soft on Russia. For not providing arms to the Crimean nationals fighting Russia, for not giving stricter sanctions and for allowing Russian aggression to go unchecked. Even though this is patently false and Putin’s control of Russia is actually more tenuous than it has been in quite some time due in part to Obama’s sanctions. After criticizing Obama for years the Republican president is having an all out love fest with Putin claiming he’s not only a great leader but not really all that bad. While some have lashed out against this sort of rhetoric, others have slowly embraced it accepting their new status quo. It tells you a lot about the sort of character they have if their opinions can be changed so easily as long as it coincides with more power. The same people who demanded what felt like a million hearings on Benghazi now hold none on Trump and brush off the concerns, Jason Chaffetz more guilty in my eyes than any.
2/22/17 Module reading 5.5–8
For this module we read the first Catilinarian Oration and wow this was an even better than the speech delivered to Mark Antony. This might be the oldest historical record of dragging ( insulting or berating someone for some reason). Cicero expertly berated Catiline for even showing up with all that he was excused of and all that they knew. He did a great job at drawing examples of Rome’s history of killing tyrants and used that for why if allowed he would execute Catiline and be blamed not for his haste but for why it took him so long. What I found interesting is a lot of time on older English translations things don’t quite translate as well insults and shade don’t come off as apparent because of the language switch. But reading this it’s readily apparent how much Catiline was called out in the senate. I’m surprised the most at the stupidity and stubbornness of Catiline. Even after repeated failed attempts to consolidate power before his attempted coup at Rome he either refused or was to dense to realize he had a spy in his midst. Catiline should’ve decreased his inner circle to only those he knew he could intimately trust or at the very least he should’ve started to send out misinformation to through Cicero and others off his scent. Catiline also should’ve been more patient and completely delayed his coup attempt until 5–10 years more down the road. Had he delayed he would’ve made Cicero look like a fool as he constantly proclaims Catiline treasonous and ready to overthrow Rome while Catiline does nothing but act as a loyal citizen. He even could’ve had his army participate in raids on the borders of Roman towns to subsidize his movement while it stalled but Catiline was an extremely impatient man and prone to poor planning it seems. Catiline reminds me of Aaron Burr who attempted to secede the western half of the United States of America. Burr who like Catiline was from a famous and noble family even though Burr was quite wealthy. Burr also was a popular and high ranking politician rising to the rank of Vice-President of the United States of America during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Burr like Catiline more than anything else really seemed to want to recoup his wealth and high standing in society and got wrapped up in what was really more of an attempt to profit from a war he was hoping would happen than lead and insurrection against the United States of America. Both failed horribly and while Burr wasn't killed he fell from historic heights into anonymity when he would later die.
2/23/17 Module Reading 8–10
We watched a video that talked about pathos, logos, ethos and those videos showed us how those three rhetoric tools can be used by someone to convey a message and to show themselves desirable for election. The video they showed us was of someone running for agriculture general of Alabama. He used ethos building up of his own character by touting his service during Vietnam and his former job of being a police officer. He then used pathos to put anger or fear into voters by claiming the elitist who were currently in charger were misappropriating funds and not real Alabamians and accused them of crimes. His election video was a successful version of using rhetorical tools they then showed us one that used a tool they described as an effective tool but a logical fallacy, and that was arguemntum ad populum or appeal to the popular belief. They said this was a fallacy because an appeal to popular belief proves no point it only says because something is popular it must be good and it does not then explain why something must be good but uses that things popularity to make it’s point. They used a coke commercial where everyone is happy and smiling because they’re drinking coke as an example nothing is said of the benefits or tastiness of coke just that because everyone is happy and drinking coke you would be happy too if you drank coke. This is a popular used techniques especially in arguments in sports where people will regularly claim that everyone would agree with them on a player or team and that’s why their right. I’ve noticed this is a tactic that I use more than I would like to admit and I’m definitely going to scrub this one from my common uses as I like to win debates and argue on merit rather than claim that because what I say is popular that I must be right. I think this shows the value of ancient leadership courses to show you blind-spots in your own thinking that you wouldn't have otherwise seen without these courses. I think there should be a move to teach ancient leadership more in middle,high school, and even elementary so it can help to change the way kids think before their more rigid and set in their ways like they are when they come to college or even in high school. These courses could help to open kids minds to new ways of understanding their society, their role in it,how to lead, and how to develop critical thinking skills that are crucial not only to Americans standing academically in the world but it would help develop the next great batch of American leaders who will help continue to push this country forward.