Being a good leader is to instill the confidence and skill worth of the ones that aspire to accept the challenge of change. Churchill’s success has been measured through the difficult challenge that faced his country during the battle of World War 2. Churchill was also a measurable success because of his passion in problem resolution and the ability to take the risks needed to help better shape and support his country. Through history and as well as present politicians being successful does not always end with being a good leader or having great management skills, however the ability to continue to bring encouragement and growing faith in those you are leading is a measured success that only the future will be able to measure. Leadership is often not recognized until years later when we have had the opportunity to review the actions and plans of the individual.
I chose this speech for its significance in history, as well as its influence on Nixon’s political standing at the time. He was a very powerful public speaker, as well as running mate and Vice President for Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon makes very powerful points though out his entire speech to show that he is in the right, and the charges against him and his party are being wrongfully made. Nixon’s greatest quality as a public speaker is his ability to sway the crowd with his charisma, and sincerity. His speech reached the people, and made them listen.
They are usually met with opposition and animosity, but those who possess true political courage stick to what they believe is right, regardless of popular belief. Jimmy Carter is a politician that fits this description. His domestic and foreign policies demonstrate bold and courageous politics. He has strong moral beliefs and went out of his way to find a peaceful resolution to any situation. He also showed courage by using his diplomatic skills to neutralize many foreign affairs and showing the United States of America in a positive light around the world.
Although, Kennedy gets his audience, Americans, engaged through antithesis, “Support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Kennedy switched up the words in his speech to get the audience thinking positively about supporting those who want the help of the United States. Kennedy then goes to a different side of his plans; explaining that the countries that get our help will be the ones who side with the U.S. in our American ideals. Thus, supporting his purpose further by stating two opposite ideas in one antithesis statement. By Kennedy doing this, he creates a strong engagement with the U.S. citizens because his main purpose is to branch out to other countries, but at the same time he said he wouldn’t let other countries stand in the way of helping those who truly want the help. Another strong motive of Kennedy is his concern with improving America further.
He starts thinking about the responsibility he has as a business man with the people who work with him. He also thinks about the fact that he would be killing the dreams of many African American who were trying to succeed in a white man’s world. Having achieved what no other African American has reached, trying to create a place for his family and advancing in social ways with white people. He is left to choose between revenge or to continue to be a colored citizen model. As the story indicates he was so close to following his intuition; “a deflection of half of an inch and he would have avenged his father’s death.” The author enlightens us over the racial conflicts and lack of justice for the African Americans during this
After the initial shock, Kennedy’s first response to the news was, “You know, it grieves me…that I just told that kid this and then walk out and find that some white man has just shot their spiritual leader” (Schlesinger 874). Although his campaign advisors, the police chief, the
He witnessed a lot of racism growing up; seeing his house burned down and his father being killed. He had it rough growing up, and he was angry with all that had happened because of the racism in America, and he just wanted blacks to be able to defend themselves. But with how America was back then, whites would have been living in fear, because newspapers would be printed out saying “Blacks strike again” on the headline. King did not want blacks to retaliate because it just would have added to the fire. With everything that King stood for and how he was able to back them with such powerful speeches; it’s easy to say that King’s philosophy made more sense than Malcolm X’s
A More Perfect Union Critique “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” These are the same words that were presented in the Constitution as well as used in Barack Obama’s speech, “A More Perfect Union” during his presidential primary campaign in 2008. His speech addresses the racism and inequality that still exist in America that is dividing American society instead of uniting it. Obama uses his own experiences to reach out to readers as well as using allusions from history and the patriotic meaning behind the history to incorporate pathos and ethos in his speech. Obama is successful in his writing because he is able to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotions, while using specific details to create more credibility
The United States experienced a dramatic shift in the avenue of racial discrimination with the end of the African-American Civil rights movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The purposes of these social movements were to arouse national awareness towards racial equality and successfully led to the official and legal recognition of abolishing racial discrimination. Yet like many areas throughout the country, my small rural hometown of Oxford, North Carolina was not quite ready to accept this integration. In May of 1970, Oxford was the stage of the tragic racially inclined murder of Henry ‘Dickie’ Marrow by several white oppressors known as the Teel brothers. This act of violence eventually went on to lead to several continuous retaliatory instances
This ruling led to many arguments. People in favor of what Joe Horn did said that it was the American thing to do. According to TIME magazine, a “small group came out to his home in Pasadena, Texas, to protest the killings,” only to be “shouted down and run off by a far larger group of bikers and residents yelling USA, USA!” (Looking kindly on Vigilante Justice www.time.com, 3/29/12) It is easy to see how a many people could be against the law. They feel that perhaps the two men did not have to die. They could have been arrested and tied.