Monthly- Archives: June 2015



VINCENT CHANG

Mr Watt´s Literary Services

 

Malcolm Gladwell: Learning to Rethink

 

Malcolm Gladwell (born September 3, 1963 in Fareham, England) is a staff writer for The New Yorker since 1996. He grew up in Ontario, Canada, in a Mennonite community and was a star mile runner. Although Gladwell has become a successful author, the adjective “Gladwellian” has been used to describe the unconventional writing style he uses.

His early career was uncommon in its challenges and ups and downs. Gladwell graduated from the University of Ontario’s Trinity College in 1984 with a bachelor’s degree in history but he did not have acceptable grades for graduate school. He described himself as “slightly lost” as he pursued a career in advertising that proved unsuccessful, finally moving to Indiana for a position at The American Spectator, a conservative monthly magazine covering news and politics.  He was let go from his position in 1985, for, he says, his tendency to oversleep. His work started to appear in the Washington Post in 1987, where he covered the business and science sections. When he joined The New Yorker in 1996, Gladwell had approximately 10 years, or 10,000 hours, of experience as a journalist, the number of hours he discussed as necessary to master one’s field in his book Outliers. His 10,000 hour-rule became a widely known theory around 2008 when Outliers was published. Gladwell is an outlier himself; he, as described by Robert Colvile, “spen[t] hours getting really good at writing and reporting, just as Mozart… Bill Gates [etc] spent 10,000 hours… then, he had to be lucky…”. Gladwell’s books aim to change the way people think, and they have influenced me to a certain extent: I have learned that talent is not everything, sheer effort really does pay off, some problems are better solved with a different approach, that an instinctive feeling can be very useful, and other interesting life-changing quirks of society.

A broken window in a city, in the grand scheme of things, seems like a very minor problem. Gladwell, however, presents the Broken Windows Theory in The Tipping Point, which argues that a small crime, such as breaking a window, that remains unchecked, promotes more crime, in this case more broken windows. The theory was first put into major use in the 1980s in the NYC subway system, starting with fare-beaters. Preventing minor crimes discouraged major crimes and kept criminals out of the subway system, thus reducing the crime rate. This change in policing created a transformation in the subway system; many people detained for fare beating were found to be carrying weapons, to have criminal records, or to have a warrant for their arrest. When Rudolph Giuliani became the mayor of NYC, he recognized the drastic improvement in the subway system and applied the theory to the city, which lowered crime rates to a quarter of the levels they had been at when Giuliani first took office.

I thought about this as I witnessed the fitness center at my school falling into a state of disrepair. For some strange reason, our P.E. department decided that the fitness unit should take place in the fitness center. Due to its lack of use, although the windows are still intact, the equipment is dated and worn, missing pins, and, in some cases, broken. Misuse is likely the most prominent of reasons for the condition of equipment, and if the Broken Windows Theory is applied, is the basis of additional misuse. Patching the pads on the fitness equipment and supervising students to ensure proper usage of the equipment would be the best course of action to counteract the deterioration of the fitness center. As the general environment in the fitness center improves, the students will, hopefully, be more careful with the equipment. In other schools with few resources, such as the poorly funded schools in villages in the Third World, students are more careful with the limited resources, showing an inverse relationship between broken windows in certain needy communities.

The Tipping Point, Gladwell’s first book, was published in 2000, named for his 1996 article “The Tipping Point” for the New Yorker. The Tipping Point expands from that ’96 article into epidemics, their causes, and why some trends fail to become viral. Gladwell examines three types of people in society: Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen. Mavens are the know-it-alls, the information gatherers, those with esoteric knowledge who are eager to share it for the benefit of everyone. Salesmen, as their name implies, are charismatic and persuasive, capable of persuading people to hop on the latest bandwagon, thus allowing the latest trend to take off. After reading about the three types of people, Connectors appear to be the most functional of the three. Connectors are the people in society who have many acquaintances, thereby possessing a large circle of friends spanning many different occupations and niches. Certainly, a Connector cannot have a close relationship with everyone, by virtue of the sheer number of people, but, counter-intuitively, weak ties are much better than close friends (or strong ties) are, at enabling the Connector to meet new people, creating new opportunities. For Gladwell, the strength of a weak tie is its ability to connect individuals who one would otherwise be unlikely to meet. Average groups of friends share similar interests; therefore the scope of finding new acquaintances is limited, but two weak ties and a Connector can facilitate a connection over a great distance, whether in space or within different, seldomly overlapping communities. The concept of Connectors provides impetus to be friendly; the more friends an individual has, especially acquaintances, the more the individual’s possibilities for opportunities expand. With the invention of the Internet, and subsequently MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, the job of a Connector has been simplified greatly through the much more effortless means of a mass e-mail or a tweet. Paul Revere was an 18th century Connector and his best means of communication was a midnight ride through the countryside. I could be a modern-day Connector who has over a thousand friends on Facebook and could inform every one of them about the latest university application requirements with a quick post on my wall. The spread of information has unquestionably become readily available, evident by the quantity and rate at which videos and images go viral on the Internet. This overload of information, however, has its flaws as discussed by Gladwell in his book What the Dog Saw, a collection of essays from The New Yorker. He deciphers a mammography and sifts through the financial reports of large corporations, demonstrating how an abundance of information impedes efficient use of the information.

What is the difference between a puzzle and a mystery? According to Gladwell, the difference is subtle: a puzzle requires a key piece of unknown information, while a mystery requires the interpretation of the known. In What the Dog Saw, Gladwell examines the differences in the problem-solving methods of mysteries and puzzles through real world applications. As a student, I apply the problem-solving method of mystery very often when taking tests or doing homework, such as solving for X, programming, and the intricacies of photography. I receive the information necessary to answer the question and manipulate it to solve the problem. When I check answers or ask a teacher for help I treat problems like a puzzle – I compare my answer with the correct answer, the key piece of information, and the teacher indicates the next step to take.  Gladwell discusses the approach that British and US intelligence agencies took to combat the German’s “devastating ‘super weapon'” that was being developed. The intelligence agencies knew neither what the weapon was nor when it would be deployable, and therefore they treated the problem like a puzzle; only a few pieces of information were required to prepare to counteract the weapon. Trying to solve it like a puzzle, they sent spies, who confirmed the construction of a weapons facility; they took aerial photographs, which showed a strange concrete structure pointed towards England… but whether or not the weapon actually existed remained unconfirmed. Both countries, however, had a small group of analysts that listened to German and Japanese propaganda broadcast over radio, scrutinizing what was said to determine the possibility of certain actions that could be taken. These analysts very accurately predicated the progress of the development based solely on the propaganda. The amount of information was sufficient, but their puzzle was not solved. Fortunately, the V-1 rocket, which the mysterious weapon turned out to be, was only used for a few months until the Allied forces invaded France and gained control of all V-1 launch sites.

What the Dog Saw is split into three parts: Obsessives, Pioneers, and other varieties of Minor Genius; Theories, Predictions, and Diagnoses; and Personality, Character, and Intelligence. The second part interested me the most. The examination of how people approach problems and the discussion on the amount of importance society places on images leads to enlightening insights on the importance of interpreting information, as discussed above.

Job interviews are flawed, Gladwell argues in What the Dog Saw, because people make assumptions about the way others will act in all situations. Studies have shown that behavior varies according to setting; honesty, for example, is not a constant trait – students were shown to have different affinities for cheating when taking tests at school or at home. Gladwell describes Nolan Myers, an intelligent, successful, Harvard graduate, who had recently spent a lot of time at job interviews. Gladwell states that if he “were an employer looking for bright young college graduates, [he would] hire him in a heartbeat”. However, he has never seen Myers in other settings, nor has he spoken to any of his relatives or professors, and he cannot explain why he likes Myers, but, Gladwell, along with Hadi Partovi, an executive at Tellme, and Steve Ballmer, the former CEO of Microsoft, decided that they approved of Myers in the short time they each spent with him. During Gladwell’s interview with Myers, he asks Myers, “are there things that you think you aren’t good at, which make you worry?” Myers replies with:

“Are there things that I’m not good at, or things that I can’t learn? I think that’s the real question. There are a lot of things I don’t know anything about, but I feel comfortable that given the right environment and the right encouragement I can do well.”

The reply can come off as arrogant or tough and confident, depending solely on one’s expectations. Job interviews, therefore, can be biased, based solely on the interviewer’s initial instinctive feeling. Gladwell describes a few different studies, one of which examined the nonverbal cues of teaching. Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal from Harvard University undertook the study using video clips from a teacher-training program. The observers were shown ten second soundless clips of the teachers and instructed to rate the teachers based on a fifteen-item checklist. The ratings remained the same even when the video clips were shortened to two seconds in length; and when Ambady compared the evaluations to those made by students after a semester of classes, the correlations were high. First impressions can severely bias the general impression the interviewer gets. As a solution, Gladwell presents a different method of interviewing. Justin Menkes, a human-resources consultant, says that the problem with interview questions “is that it’s much too obvious what the interviewee is supposed to say”. Menkes’ suggestion is to rephrase the questions: “At your weekly team meetings, your boss unexpectedly begins aggressively critiquing your performance on a current project. What do you do?” The way the interviewee answers this question enlightens the interviewer on what the interviewee believes the workplace demands. Is it tolerance or confrontation? Much like many of the other ideas Gladwell presents, the problems in job interviews are the less examined problems in society, some of which seem to have relatively simple solutions. The first impression is one of the most important factors when meeting new people, and until job interview questions are modified, Myers suggests that the best way to present oneself to potential employers is to simply “speak clearly and smile”.

       The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, What the Dog Saw, and David and Goliath, Gladwell’s five books, are a collection of ideas and theories presented in a riveting fashion. They are designed to provoke thought.



ANDREA CHANG

 

A Certain Himalayan Cat

 

I remember the day I met my friend, a pure-bred Himalayan cat. A Himalayan is a cross between a Siamese and a Persian. Himalayans have the Siamese’s color points and the Persian’s fluffy, double layered coat. And this cat had the best of both worlds! This cat’s mother and father were both Himalayans. We got her when she was 5 months old.  Well, actually it started the day before. I remember I went to a shelter in Connecticut to find a cat, and my mom and I found an adorable little kitten.  Mom said that if we got it, we would have to declaw it, and the shelter did not allow declawing. I was upset so mom took me to New York to Pets On Lex, a pet store to look at some cats.  We found her there.  I begged mom to possess the creature, but she said ‘no’.  The next day, my dad wanted to go to New York for lunch. He suggested we go to the pet store to get a cat next. Mom finally said yes! I was so happy.  I had to choose between a cute little Persian and the magnificent white kitten I saw there. We named her Snowball in the car. Mom said that I could give her whatever name I want. I looked at her little white face, and decided Snowball!  And Snowball it was! We had already gotten everything prepared, so we put her in her carrier and took her home.  She was meowing the whole way home, I felt bad.  Then, she threw up in her carrier, which made things worse… .

We visited the vet for the first time with her, and we asked if we should declaw her.  The vet said he wouldn’t recommend it, so in the end we didn’t. Although she has scratched us a couple hundred times, she’s never scratched the furniture, and that’s all that matters to mom.  She mostly kicks and bites though.  I remember when I was holding her next to the window on a stormy night, which was the worst mistake of my life, and lightning struck, apparently Snowball is scared of lightning, so she bit my hand!  It really hurt.  She also kicks when we brush her.  Her toenails are the longest because it’s really hard to cut them.  When we try, she always tries to kill us.  Snowball only sometimes is aggressive, but she normally is very calm.

Snowball is also very picky.  As I said, we had already prepared for Snowball.  We had a litter box, a scratching post, toys, and food from the pet store.  Apparently Snowball didn’t like the litter we got her.  Instead of pooping in the litter box like she was supposed to, she decided to do her business in an unused bathtub!  We didn’t find out until a few weeks later.  When we found out we immediately switched the litter.  We tried probably ten different litter brands; we found out Snowball likes the clay the best (which she still uses now!) and she hates scented litter.

When we brought Snowball home it was dinnertime.  Mom made chicken for dinner, and chicken as we now know, is Snowball’s favorite.  When dinner was done we sat at the table.  At the table there are four chairs, and we only have three people.  Snowball decided that she wanted to join us so she hopped up onto the chair no one was using.  Mom got her a plate and we gave her some chicken, she loved it!  So now every time we have dinner she comes up onto her favorite chair (which is right next to mine) and eats dinner with us.  Snowball’s just like another family member! Sometimes when we are preparing Snowball’s food, she gets anxious and can’t wait so she stands up and put her two paws on the table.

Snowball is also very friendly with people who come over.  Every time one of my parent’s friends come over, Snowball’s always at the door to greet them!  Snowball follows them everywhere and behaves very well.  Snowball loves people.  She also likes other animals too.  My babysitter has a dog-named Penny, an eleven-year-old Shi Tzu.  Penny is very calm, and so is Snowball so they get along very well.  When Snowball first encountered Penny, she was frightened.  Snowball hissed and batted her paw at Penny, but after a week, they became best friends.  Snowball loves Penny, but Penny sometimes gets annoyed at her.  Once in a while, Snowball will pull Penny’s tail and run away, and Penny will look for where Snowball went. Now, Penny’s just used to it.

I remember when we first brought Snowball home and we took her outside.  That was her first time being outside, Snowball loved it!   We didn’t have a leash, so Snowball just roamed around freely, staying close to us because she knew she could trust us.  Now mom is always afraid Snowball will run away, so we have to use a leash!  We trained Snowball to go outside, so now she knows what to do when she’s outside.  Usually our cat just sniffs the flowers and roams around with her leash.  Once in a while she’ll catch a bug.  If there are any bugs inside, she will not leave the poor thing alone until it’s dead.  Snowball has killed bees, ants, stinkbugs, wasps, and so much more.  Snowball doesn’t catch rats though – we don’t let her in the basement, and that’s the only place in the house where there aren’t any bugs.  I wonder if Snowball would catch a rat if she saw one, well we’ll never know unless we let her in the basement.

Snowball now sleeps in my bed every night.  When we first got her, we put her in her room, but she’s very well behaved so mom let her roam freely at night.  I open my door a crack so Snowball can sleep with me if she wants to.  Sometimes she wants someone to play with, so she meows in the middle of the night.   It annoys mom, so mom lets her into her room.  Snowball sometimes brings her tin foil ball upstairs and meows with the ball in her mouth to tell us she wants to play.  She also meows when she’s hungry or needs to go to the bathroom.

In the morning Snowball always comes into my room and purrs so loud that I wake up.  It’s now her habit.  Snowball is so cute, especially in the morning, and she is so calm and gentle, which is one of my favorite things about her.  Snowball loves everyone, and gets along with other pets too (such as Penny!)  Snowball is the best cat I could ever ask for!

 


 



ZHUO-WEI LEE

 

Integrity or Craft: Why not Both?

 

“Many voters think that integrity and character are the most important qualifications for political office. I disagree. Integrity—the quality of standing up for the same values in every situation—is not a good qualification for getting people to work together. Strongly held morals may make a candidate too inflexible and incapable of negotiation. And if character were really so important, candidates would be judged by their personal relationships rather than by their ability to deal with a community’s or a nation’s problems.”

 

~ Stanley Fish, “Integrity or Craft: The Leadership Question”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integrity and character, according to Stanley Fish, cannot be the sole qualities of a good leader. They need to be skilled in their “craft”, or in other words, show the ability to lead instead of sticking to a single idea and being everyone’s, or their constituents’ nice guy. And yet despite Fish’s statement, there are leaders who have proven to history that it is both their integrity and craft that can lead to the sweeping change they desired as leaders. Though an incompetent leader may prove Fish’s words to be true, a leader who has strong moral character and skill can motivate and lead people to solve their nation’s problems. Citizens will always strive to live in a nation free of oppression and lies, but that is an unattainable goal. The citizenry, unfortunately, seem to be collectively ignorant of what is hindering their freedom.  Yet, where there are political injustices, there must be a solution to please the people. Essentially, you must have a leader that empowers the people so that they can direct a nation according to their values. But if the system itself is fraught with corruption, secrecy and double-speak, sometimes what are needed are those who can powerfully remove obstacles, bringing a more level playing field to the situation.

Extraordinary citizens like Thomas Paine and Edward Snowden removed the obstacles that cloud the public’s view on political issues. They challenged and challenge what qualifies a leader to be successful in their craft, with their activism, which appeals to the common interests of all. Paine’s appeal had to do with living freely, out from under the control of an island country 2,000 miles away, while Snowden has identified for the American and international public that NSA (National Security Agency) and CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) spying have threatened our rights. While Snowden is indeed an expert, having reached some of the highest security clearances, he proves himself worthy in his actions of unveiling and sharing the facts of illegal spying, which benefits the citizenry.

With intentions similar to Snowden, Paine explains the negative influence of Britain as a leader in Common Sense. Selfish and unaware of the struggles the American people were enduring, the British taxed their colonies and controlled them without their consent or representation in government. They also used an aristocratic and monarchic government, which Paine saw as “two ancient tyrannies”. With his direct and logical pamphlet, appealing to the common man, Paine managed to influence and mobilize the entire developing nation. People who were originally unsure or indifferent about the American independence movement now possessed a mindset to either support or fight against America.  In this case, Britain failed to demonstrate capable leadership for its people. In this insurrectional replacement, there was to be a government established that was to be elected by the people and serve the needs of the people.

Snowden, famous for his exposure of mass government surveillance programs, explained that the leader of the country failed to inform the people to give their consent for such programs. At first, Snowden “believed in Obama’s promises”, but he changed his thoughts after he realized Obama was continuing “with the policies of his predecessor.” In Snowden’s view, the leader was not adhering with the Constitution he was bound to, and therefore felt that the real leader (the People) should be empowered to decide on the legality of the programs. He believed that such programs justified in secret courts would have a different outcome once tested in a public setting. His changes made people more aware of political issues and removed the curtain that hid unauthorized programs. In an article by Scott Shane for The New York Times, titled “Snowden Sees Some Victories, From a Distance”, Shane explains that Snowden’s actions were not done in vain. On May 7, 2015, a federal court ruled the bulk collection of call data to be illegal. Now besides ending the surveillance programs, Snowden proposed another policy change: to protect whistleblowers. He recommended the creation of “independent agencies staffed by civil liberties advocates” to work with other people with similar problems.

Why would Snowden advocate for the protection of whistleblowers from his temporary asylum in Russia? Is it merely to protect himself, or is it a movement towards a larger concept of pervasive freedom?  Is it because he had a “greater commitment to justice than a fear of the law”? In an attempt to move the nation towards a free world, Snowden lost many comforts of his life. He once lived in a nice house on Hawaii, with his girlfriend and family, and with a well-paid career position. He gave this up because of his commitment to the nation. See, Snowden had already encountered people before him in his workplace who were well aware of the illegitimacy of the programs. But for fear of losing their stable lifestyle, they chose not to blow the whistle. But then again, if Snowden really wanted support his movement, wouldn’t he return to America to accept his fate? If what he did was truly justified, then wouldn’t he be pardoned upon returning home? Why would he hide in Russia, under the wing of President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer and leader of a government not known for its transparency? Perhaps Mr. Snowden is a reasonable man, and doesn’t want to risk the rest of his life in jail. Where else would he hide? There are only a few countries where the American government cannot muscle its way around.

Powerful figures and spokespersons, like the former deputy director and acting director of the C.I.A., Michael J. Morell, feel that Snowden’s actions in no way could have helped or supported America. They say that this leaked information could be sent to enemies of the state, like the extremist ISIS group. In a blunt and denouncing statement, Morell said, “Americans may well die at the hands of terrorists because of Edward Snowden’s actions.” Political leaders like Morell will certainly have their way with Snowden if he were to return to the country. By and large, there are two sides to Snowden. Some view that what he has done to the country is treason, and he the villainous whistleblower. Others find that he is a hero of sorts, who has championed the people in modern times. But “I’m not a hero. I’m not a traitor. I’m an ordinary American like anyone else…” Snowden says. While this could be seen as disingenuous, Snowden is merely appealing to the people as one of them, and showing that any American can make a change in government.  We now live in a “post-Snowden” era where people fear for their safety and need leadership.

While the United States is one of the world’s oldest continual democracies, its birth came through a bloody fight – the American Revolution, somewhat inspired by Mr. Paine’s Common Sense. Americans know that the Constitution must be continually defended, otherwise it will be trampled upon, and democracy is always a fragile experiment. Other nations have struggled to achieve democracy, and still others have rejected it utterly, producing leaders who, because of their power and ideology, fall into regressive and abhorrent practices.

In the early twentieth century, Mahatma Gandhi was the leading figure in the push to full Indian sovereignty. Throughout the difficulties of revolution, Gandhi continued to preach resistance in the form of non-coöperation, nonviolence, and truth. He believed that nonviolence was “mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man” and he promoted the concept throughout his life. Starting in the early 1920s, Gandhi encouraged people to give up anything British, whether it be Western clothes, goods or jobs. He believed that Britain’s colonial grasp on India would loosen with acts of noncooperation. Following the Amritsar Massacre in 1919, Gandhi opposed responses such as riots and acts of violence against British citizens. He explained that violence of any kind was evil. Even with the threat of Direct Action, where Muslims feared persecution after Indian independence, and would fight back, Gandhi personally visited the areas with the highest tension in an attempt to prevent the genocide and horror that would follow. In each of these harrowing situations, Gandhi maintained his morals and continued to lead the nation through the troubles and traumas of independence from colonial rule.

Gandhi also had several personal relationships with world leaders. In a letter to Hitler, Gandhi presents himself as a friend and explains to Hitler that his methods of violence through science and technology can only be dominant temporarily: “If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon.” Accordingly, Gandhi proposed “to make an effort for peace” and hoped that Mussolini would do the same. Winston Churchill went so far as to call Gandhi a “Naked Fakir”, but nevertheless, Gandhi kindly asked Churchill to trust his ability to care for India.Even with people against his methods of resistance, Gandhi attempted to teach and move these people to different directions. Gandhi said himself, “I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles; but today it means getting along with people.” Leadership requires co-öperation between people to achieve their desires, and Gandhi worked with millions to achieve theirs peacefully, which is still playing out.

Gandhi contrasts Fish’s words with his life. His philosophy and his moral character was upheld throughout his leadership. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” Violence was the dominant consensus for bringing about change, but Gandhi kneaded, pressed, and shaped an unyielding discourse into a philosophy that would leave behind a legacy for all to observe.

Joseph Stalin, on the contrary, was a leader of oppression. By attempting to tackle too many problems at once with too many strategies, Stalin’s policies failed to lead the Soviet Union out of post-war troubles. For instance, the Five-Year Plan forced immediate collectivization, labor, and industrialization onto an already struggling Soviet peasantry. Designed to target a minority of wealthy peasants (kulaks), collectivization led to the removal of majority of peasants who were not quite as wealthy as kulaks. In addition, Stalin’s plans included the forced labor of prisoners to support rapid industrialization. Working in dangerous conditions and terrible health, many died from the intense labor.

Stalin also had personal relationships with communist leaders, namely Kim Il-Sung and Mao Zedong. Stalin and Mao had an alliance against the Nationalist Guomingdang Party, which later led to the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance. Mao’s regime is widely known as oppressive. Perhaps there could be similarities drawn between Mao’s and Stalin’s rule.

One might argue that the over-ambitious goals, the lies of success, the famines, and the mass murder and deportation of peasants and politicians was all necessary in order to serve the best interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, I feel it was naturally all designed to maintain rapid industrialization and the rise of the nation as a global superpower.

But what can justify the massacre of millions? How can the devoid expressions of starving, impoverished children lead one to believe that the policies of oppression can be justified? We must rethink the qualities a political leader must possess to be successful. Stalin’s concern for revolt and dissent was so great that he killed and deported any counter-revolutionaries in the army and Communist Party. His actions were so atrocious that they are remembered in history as “The Great Purge”. Unlike Gandhi’s ideology, Stalin felt that he needed to consolidate power so his rule could not be questioned. However, Gandhi’s ideas were so motivating and popular among the people that power was given to him. He rose as leader because people willed him to. Stalin became a leader through ousting a competitor (Trotsky) and forcing people to accept him. Gandhi’s leadership is characterized as nonviolent while promoting passive resistance, but throughout Stalin’s rule, we see a movement towards force and a promotion of a single guiding principle. And on December 26, 1991, Stalin’s legacy dissolved as the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin.

Both Gandhi and Stalin attempted to lead their country in a time of turmoil. Gandhi managed to empower the people themselves and promote resistance in a nonviolent way. Leaders like Gandhi demonstrate that a simple, powerful principle can compel millions towards triumphing over a singularly desired goal. Stalin’s policies, though grand in theory, were brutal in execution and only led to a degenerating population. People like Thomas Paine and Edward Snowden place on us a collective responsibility, giving faith to citizens to address inconsistencies in the system, and then to elect a good leader and make fair decisions. They define and reveal who the incapable leaders are, and helped spark reform. They open the public eye to relevant issues and address them. But even after revolution and change, responsibility for national decisions will eventually boil down to the leaders the people elect themselves.