Many similarities between John F Kennedy’s speech and the speech of Mark Anthony can be seen. In Kennedy’s inaugural address he is addressing the citizens of America who have come to listen to their new president speak. In the speech given by Mark Anthony he is addressing the citizens of Rome and informing them on things that have happened recently. Both of these speeches are for the benefit of the citizens. The speech was given to inform them and to help them. In addition they both use similar tactics such as when Kennedy pauses and waits for a reply or a cheer from his crowd. In this way he includes the crowd in his speech and makes them feel more important. In the speech given by Mark Anthony he too pauses and waits for replies from his audience and by doing so includes them more and grasps their attention. These orators both show great understanding of the art of public speaking because they find ways to include their audiences and to make them included in their speech. Another similarity in these speeches is that they both appeal to the listeners emotions in some way or another. In Mark Anthony’s speech he is stirring the crowd’s emotion and getting them angry about the death of Julius Caesar and how he was wrongfully murdered by his own friends. In John F Kennedy’s speech he was stirring the emotion of nationalism and how not to be afraid and how as a united nation they can over come all. This is important because it stimulates the listener on a deeper level because many people are strongly affected by their own emotions and sometimes they don’t think straight if their emotions get in the way. This is the case in Julius Caesar when the crowd kills innocent people because they are stirred up. In both of these speeches strong leaders and speakers were a vital role in the success of the speech itself. The speakers were fluent and their tone was stirring and they believed what they were saying. They spoke with emotion and control and this is what helped bring the support of the crowd.

Although these two speeches have many similarities they also have many differences between them. For example in the speech given by John F Kennedy was about and relating to the cold war, on the other hand the speech given by Mark Anthony was about the death and murder of Julius Caesar. In addition the main point expressed in Mark Anthony’s speech was that he felt that Julius Caesar was wrongfully murdered and that he was in fact not ambitious. Whereas in the speech given by John F Kennedy was about uniting as a nation to overcome hard obstacles such as the cold war. Overall the speech that Mark Anthony gave had an emphasis on revenge and to want to kill those who killed Julius Caesar. In the speech that John F Kennedy gave he had a happy and inspiring approach. He tried to lift the spirits of the fellow citizen and to make them feel that they can overcome the dangerous world before them. Finally there are two different things we remember a bought each one of these speeches. In Mark Anthony’s speech we remember about ambition and how Brutus can be seen as a not ambitious person and in the speech by John F Kennedy we remember the famous sentence, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”.

In conclusion speeches have been greatly influential on society. Many speeches have similar components which make a speech good. Also the speaker is a large part to whether or not the speech is successful. Speeches can motivate people they can anger people they can get people excited and motivate people toward a certain goal. As we can see in these two speeches by Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare and the inaugural address of John F Kennedy there were many similarities and differences between these two speeches. Both speeches influenced a group of people even though they were different people as well as taking place at a different time. It is important to have a good speech to motive and move a crowd.

To have a leading role you must have a support system. If you assume a leading role in a area of knowledge, a business, an industry, then you must have a support system.

You cannot be the owner of a company, for example, and have an effective business unless the people in the company are supportive of you, unless you have a support system. People working for you must trust and respect you as a business professional, and you must have a support system.

People must be available to work for your company and to work for you and to do the work to the best of their ability and expertise.

You must have customers and those available to buy your products and services.

The community that you have the business in must be supportive of you.

Many business people for example before even setting up a company must find out if they have adequate support system for that company.

A community that doesn’t want a Wal-mart, for example, and is not going to be supportive of Wal-mart, then Wal-mart can not set up in that community.

First, Wal-mart must have a sufficient work force qualified to do all the different types of work that Wal-mart in that community requires.

They also must have customers enough in that community to support Wal-mart by buying the products so that Wal-mart has sufficient money to make a profit in that community, buy its products, and to pay salaries to its employees. Plus the community in general must be supportive of having a Wal-mart in their community.

Whoever is the local manager of Wal-mart must be a trusted business professional who people are able to work with in a professional and business manner.

This is true not only of the large companies like Wal-mart, but small local grocery stores.

Mainly to stay in business you need quality products and buyers of those quality products and a quality work force. Many things you need to go into business and to stay in business.

If you have very few people supportive of you you can have a company or business, but it would have to be a small, private company and you would have to assign the type of work that very few people can do.

What are the types of companies where you can work with very few people and have an effective business or company? The owner must list these types of companies.

If you have very little money for startup costs and advertising, then you must list the types of companies that you can start with very little money.

Of course your goal is to have a large company or a corporation perhaps, but you start with business goals that are possible.

Perhaps with the very few people that you employ the only type of business that you can think of is web content writing. Then you can start your small, private company writing web content. Those who work for you are assigned to write web content. So you are a web content company.

We use web content only as an example. You can also study the internet and your community for the types of companies that very few people are needed to have that type of company.

Perhaps a small candy store or a small toy store in your community. Or perhaps a small store that buys and sells used books. Perhaps these are the only types of stores that you have a support system in your community. Then consider these stores.

Let’s say you’re interested in setting up a publishing company. There is not sufficient support in your type of community to sustain a publishing company. Perhaps you can set up a small private company in your community and try to have a branch of that publishing company in a community in which there is more of a support system for publishing, including qualified workers. Perhaps in your community few know anything about publishing, then you have to find a community, including an online community of qualified workers in publishing. You certainly cannot work in publishing when you don’t have qualified workers or a support system of buyers for your books, and/or even a community that is receptive to published works,

We are using business as samples of support systems for leadership role-playing, nevertheless these questions of support systems for leaders applies to every area in which you have leaders, from entertainment to sports to politics to intelletual to spiritual leadership.

In addition you must have people knowledge of the type of leadership. As we have noted previously, most practical, materially oriented people only recognize material world leadership and material world leaders.

For those interested in intellectual or spiritual leadership, then they must work with the types of people that recognize this type of leadership. If it’s necessary for them to translate this recognition into the material world, then they must learn the appropriate methods of translating this into the material world.

Now for The Caesar Principle. Most leaders must maintain an adequate support system for their type of leadership. Of course, you can have truly independent leaders, but generally truly independent leaders are not necessarily leaders of others, they are their own leaders, and mostly they don’t have a support system. In a business, for example, such business people just do the work themselves.

You have independent scholars and independent intellectuals that merely do the work themselves. They might record their work in personal journals. They might self-publish their work, but generally they are their own support system. Many of these types of independent scholars and independent intellectuals work online with their articles on blogs. Nevertheless, generally their must be readers, so that readers are a certain type of support system. Having a public blog to write on also provides a support system, even if people don’t necessarily like what the blogger has to say. A support system does not necessarily have to be other people, although generally human beings look towards other people to provide some type of support system, as we find in internet business communities.

Most independent types try to be as independent as they can be, including those who need to work with others, such as directors and producers and even actors, who have to work in a collaborative art, nevertheless seeking more control of their intelletual property.

But in The Caesar Principle most leaders recognize very easily the people who are genuinely supportive of them and the types of support systems they have.

If you are working with others in a leadership mode, then certainly you have to maintain a support system.

Political leaders demonstrate The Caesar Principle very easily. Let’s say you’re a political leader and you start your career with many supporters, then you find your supporters become your “accusers,” and then you find very few people continue to be your supporters, and you have only a very few “mark anthonies.”

Some political leaders do not follow this example, but continue to have or appear to have a very power support system, genuine supportive of these as leaders.

This doesn’t mean that people just have to go along with a Caesar. They have the right to object, to complain, and to interfere, if necessary, nevertheless they are constructive types with constructive criticism, and they are not necessarily interested in the role of Caesar themselves. They are supportive.

Those interested in the role of Caesar themselves must then work independently.

We find this in singing groups where everybody wants to be the lead singer. Then you find that these lead singers have to work independently of each other and then find their independent support systems. Those genuinely committed to each other find a way to accomplish this without being destructive to each other. They simply recognize that they are all leading role figures. They can work together and/or independently.

Some of these workers are simply supportive of their Caesar. They are not interested in doing anything except to try to help them to become the best Caesar that that person can be. If they truly believe another is better, including themselves, then of course they can say so. But they can do so in a constructive rather than a destructive. And also they can encourage their Caesar to a constructive form of leadership. However, there are many destructive forms of leadership that leaders have traditionally found necessary. In the postmodern analysis of role-playing, of course, we can discuss the constructive leadership models and the destructive leadership models. Students of role-playing can study both of these models of role-playing and every role.

As for the role of Caesar, people to have right to accept or reject the role. They also have the right to redefine the role, not according to the archetype, but according to their understanding of how they want to play the role.

Many times however if you play a role in a society that has an archetype of that role or a stereotype, as we have noted, even if you want to play the role differently, your society often forces you into that role according to their stereotypical or archetypal understanding. In order not to play that role according to your cultures or societies understanding, sometimes you have to withdraw from the role altogether or go into another civilization that has a different archetype, where you have more freedom in role-playing, such as when so-called civilized role-playing go to more primitive societies–from their understanding of the primitive, such as when Gauguin decided to go to Tahiti.

Of course the Tahitians might have considered Gauguin as equally primitive as he considered them. And we must note, for these Europeans who like to discover people that when Gauguin went to Tahiti he didn’t necessarily discover any Tahitians, he discovered himself. He didn’t conquer any Tahitians necessarily, but according to Cervantes, he conquered himself.

So what do you do if you find yourself playing Caesar in your leadership role. What do you do with your mark anthonies?

By recognizing this pattern, you can alter the role. By not recognizing this pattern, you simply find yourself playing the role.

This is the importance again of role-playing recognizing the stereotypes, archetypes of their civilizations, so that when they can into a role, they do not have to always play the role according to their civilizations understanding of the role.

In addition, when other people who have certain stereotypical and archetypal understandings try to get them to play the role according to some naive and intuitive stereotype or archetype they are able to say yes or no. But they do so with a freedom and self-conscious understanding.

This is no different from people who understand customs, values, mores and folkways on the self-conscious and not on the primitive level. They often appear “crazy” to their societies and civilizsations, but nevertheless they have a certain freedom that others do not have.

However, if they want to discuss why they object to certain customs, values, mores, and folkways, they have to talk to experts and professional people that understand their objections, along with them, on the professional and expert level. The so-called people are certain not going to understand them, because they just follow the customs, values, mores and folkways of their societies. They have been doing so for centuries. Societies need these people to maintain a certain cohesiveness; but they also need the professionals, experts, and scholars that understand on the professional level.

For example, Jospeh Mbele has a book sold at Lulu Press that discusses the difference between American and African culture. Americans visiting Africa need to know the difference from a professional African scholar. Africans need an African scholar to study their culture, their customs and folkways and who can communicate with Americans in a language that American understand, and who knows on a self-conscious level the customers of both Americans and Africans. These types of experts are needed along with the Americans and Africans who just go along with their customs, values, principles, folkways, civilizations without thinking self-consciously about these.

This is the same self-consciousness that is necessary in role-playing. We need the intuitive role-players, but we also need the experts and the self-conscious role-players, and scholars similar to Mr. Mbele.

Should Julius Caesar have understood The Caesar Principle, perhaps we might have had a different history. Or perhaps not. However, he is the archetype for many of this type of role-playing.

Many of these problems have nothing to do with the person necessarily. The person becomes identified with the role.

That’s the way it is with many roles.

As we have noted in previous discussions of role-playing, that some friends who are perfect friends for these people in some roles, are not necessarily any more perfect friends for them in the new role.

Hillary Clinton, for example. Some friends perfect for Hillary Clinton at Wellesley are not necessarily perfect for her as lawyer role as senator role, and should she become president, not necessarily the perfect person for her as president.

Some friends can continue with people throughout the roles that they play. Others, although they value these friends, are not necessarily the perfect people in the different roles.

This is the same with Oprah Winfrey. Some people appropriate for her best friends as a child on the playground are not necessarily the appropriate people to be her friends as a high profile public person and the type of requirements that she has for people who are her friends now.

Some of these people might continue to value Oprah Winfrey, remembering the childhood friend, but they know very well that they are not the right people to be accompanying her to Africa to do the type of work that she is required to do now. Some of them understand this, and when she says do this and do that as her friend now, many of these friends would not be qualified for the type of work that she is doing now. They are qualified to be a friend of hers, but they are not qualified for the type of work that it is necessary for her to do now. Some friends know and understand that. Some friends don’t know and don’t understand that. The friends that know and understand that do what they are qualified to do. Maybe they are only qualified to give money to her causes.

Some of her friends are not qualified to be high profile public people like she is. In fact, there role would probably be very destructive, whether they want it to be or not. So she has to find friends who are qualified for that role.

Of course, people can work with their friends to help them to meet the qualifications that come with certain roles. They can have workshops and experts to meet with them, to discuss this person and their new role, to discuss the various things that their friends have to know and learn now, such as how to understand and deal with the media. How to understand the public world and public roles.

For example, if you have a friend who becomes president. There are many things in this new roles that many friends probably don’t have a clue about. Suppose a president witnesses their best and dearest and longest friends rejecting them because of the media and the press. The president and the professionals who work with presidents are not going to reject some president easily because of the media. These are professionals. Some of them are also professional friends. Some of them are just professionals. Those who work on the staff of many presidents are not necessarily going to reject a president because of the media. Professionals in this world understand how to be professionals. They are not necessarily the best friends in the personal sense of friendship. But they are best friends in the professional sense of friendship.

Of course public figures are concerned when their best and dearest personal friends don’t understand enough about the media, the press, the public world, public roles, and are that naive. Should they scold their friends? Of course. However, they would nevertheless have to be educated to understand that new role and that new world.

Some people do not even consider public roles because they witness this too often. They don’t consider public roles and public careers for precisely this reason. They don’t necessarily consider the fault their friends, because they value them very much, but certainly they are not interested in having public careers that can disrupt and corrupt honorable friendships so easily.

Some public figures continue they careers and go to war with all of their good friends if it’s necessary. Others draw a line at that. They understand what is going on. If their friends understand also, and are professional enough, then they continue the careers. If the people they value don’t understand, then many draw a line on their careers right there.

Those who have friends who are in the public world themselves, and who are used to playing these roles, who understand the press, the media, and the whole public role-playing including the leadership role on the professional level, most of the time these types of friends continue longer, including with all the scandals, real or imaginary.

Bill Clinton, for example. Some of his friends might have been acceptable as boyhood friends. But his political friends now, who continue throughout all the scandals, and the corruptions, deserved or not, are a different sort of friends, and certainly they have to be pure professionals. Many personal type of friends who don’t know how to accompany leaders and political types are not going to continue through the first few scandals. Many of them just are not. And they consider themselves to have some integrity also.

This is something for leaders and for their friends, who are friends of leaders, and public people to consider.

When leaders go into roles, their friends go into these roles along with them. Most of the time professional friends are able to continue longer than personal friends, no matter how noble and honorable. So they must decide should they go into these roles at all.

Some people when they go into a career that requires their best and dearest and oldest friends to deny and reject to continue a career, some continue. Some decide it’s best to draw a line on that role at that point.

Most leaders are “little caesars” and many can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are. It’s very easy when you go into a role like that.

Most public figures are “little caesars” also and many can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are. It’s very easy.

How do you know? The only time you know is you have to play the role, and it’s very easy. You have to actually go into the role first, be their playing the role, and then you can find out very quickly who your mark anthonies are.

Go into the role first, whether you’re a political leader or an entertainment or business leader or even a literary leader it’s very easy to find out.

Anybody who assumes any type of leadership, even if it’s just a leader in a small, private company can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are.

Explain ourselves. Just go into the role.

Think of yourself. Do you have a leadership in any area at all. If you don’t, then you cannot easily identify these people. Or maybe you are the mark anthony to a leader that you know–in your company or business, for example.

If you observe and study roles and/or go about with people who are leaders, even if you do not play mark anthony for them yourself, you can identify these people very quickly. If you’re playing mark anthony, then you can identify yourself also.

What role do you want to play?

Whether you’re playing “little caesar” or whether you’re playing a mark anthony–try to be honorable.

If Hillary Clinton ever becomes the first female president and gets to play this role, and truly goes into the role herself, the little caesar, then she will probably be able to find out very quickly who her mark anthonies.

Perhaps Bill Clinton? Perhaps her daughter? Perhaps a few of her personal friends? Perhaps a few of her professional political friends?

Some of us oberving Hillary Clinton–she’s just an example–might know, who study roles and role-players, or perhaps only Hillary Clinton is going to know for sure. Or perhaps Hillary Clinton is not going to recognize her mark anthony.

So, what do you do if you assume a leadership role and you witness the behavior that most leaders witness? First, you find out who are the professionals who understand that role and that behavior on the professional level. These people are experts who study role-playing. They are not necessarily going to play your “mark anthony” for you, but if you need to discuss this problem and figure out what to do about it, these people can discuss the problem with you, discuss the problems with the many “romans” and discuss the problem with your “mark anthonies.” These people study this behavior, and have been students of this behavior in their study of roles and role-playing throughout history, and so these people can discuss the problem as professionals and experts. They are not necessarily going to interfere unless it’s necessary.

If you are fans of Ugly Betty for example, it’s very easy to identify the various “little caesars” and their various “mark anthonies,” and the various “romans.” This is role-playing at its best. Some of the leaders are honorable leaders, some of them are corrupt, some of their mark anthonies are honorable and some of their mark anthonies are corrupt. The “romans” play the role differently also, and sometimes the leaders, the mark anthonies, and the romans exchange roles in different contexts. We can study this in movies, in fictions, and in the real world.

On the American Idol real world reality show, Simon, Randy, and Paula get to play “little caesars” and surely they have all by now identified their mark anthonies and the romans.

In this philosophy of role-playing as it involves leadership, we call this “The Caesar Principle.”

Once we understand this role-playing, we don’t have to necessarily play any of these roles. But we have to understand it on a self-conscious and not intuitive level. Then we don’t have to play caesar, mark anthony, or the roman.

In fact, we can, as we’re stated before in our role-playing philosophies, we can counsel caesar, mark anthony, and the romans. Or we can play some of these roles ourselves, but we would do so understanding the roles, not as naive, intuitive role-players.

Whether caesar, mark anthony, or the romans. We’ll just use these archetypal symbols in our role-playing philosopy of leadership. How do we be honorable in these roles?

The great African American composer Scott Joplin also presented a principle of leadership in his great American opera called Treemonisha.

In the opera the community comes to Treemonisha to get her to play leader. The text of this opera can be found online at “Gary’s Treemonisha Page”, http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/9694/treemo.html.

Let’s quote from Act III of this great American opera and call this the Treemonisha principle of leadership:

No. 26: We Will Trust You As Our Leader
Treemonisha:
We ought to have a leader
In our neighborhood,
An energetic leader,
To follow for our good.
The ignorant too long have ruled,
I don’t see why they should.
And all the people they have fooled,
Because the found they could.
Chorus:
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader,
No one else could lead like you,
For you know what is best to do.
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader,
You must lead for you are wise,
And we will surely rise.
We want you to lead,
You should lead us.
Dear, your bidding we will do.
And we’ll always follow you.
We feel blue, dear,
We feel blue.
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader.
Treemonisha:
If I lead the good women,
Tell me, who will lead the men?
Men:
You, you, you, you, you!
Treemonisha:
Women may follow me many days long,
But the men may think that I am wrong.
Men:
No, no, no, no, no!
Chorus all:
We all agree to trust you,
And we will be true.
We all agree to trust you,
And we will be true.
Treemonisha:
There’s need of some good leader,
And there’s not much time to wait.
To lead us in the right way
Before it is too late.
For ignorance is criminal
In this enlightened day.
So let us all get busy,
When once we have found the way.
Chorus:
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader, etc.
Lead now, please lead now,
Please lead, for we will trust your as our leader.
Treemonisha:
I will lead you;
O yes, I will lead you.
(quoted from Gary’s Treemonisha Page)

We note that Treemonisha does not accept the leadership role until she gets the assurance that the people trust her as leader. This does not, however, mean that the people are going to continue to trust her in the role. Perhaps she’ll have her “mark anthonies.” Perhaps another and greater leader than Treemonisha shall come forth and become the new trusted leader. It’s also significant that Treemonisha is a female leader, and makes sure to find out not only if the females in the community trust her as leader, but do the men of the community also trust her.

Let us repeat this section, for the good female leaders:

Treemonisha:
If I lead the good women,
Tell me, who will lead the men?
Men:
You, you, you, you, you!
Treemonisha:
Women may follow me many days long,
But the men may think that I am wrong.
Men:
No, no, no, no, no!

Certain masculine leadership must also make a similar request of females in a community. Women leaders understand this, men leaders may or may not understand this role of trusted leadership.

There might be other leaders in the community, perhaps more qualified than Treemonisha, nevertheless she is the person that the community decides upon as their trusted leader.

Communities can be right in this or they can be wrong. However, to be a leader according to this Treemonisha principle you must have the trust of the people who you are leading.

Again, this is only the beginning of a leader’s career as leader. And even for Treemonisha, the Caesar Principle, as an archetype of leadership, probably also applies.

As for Treemonisha, we must make it clear, it’s possible that Treemonisha could be among the leaders of her community, but be unrecognized as that. There are many leaders of many ethnic groups and nationalities than are greatly qualified for leadership but are recognized as leaders only by the few. These people can therefore only be leaders of these few and not the many. These are certainly acceptable leaders also. Sometimes they are never recognized by the many. Sometimes they are.

Possibly many of us have known these types of leaders also. Where a very few of us recognize and connect to them. Generally these are not material world leaders, but intellectual leaders or metaphysical leaders. Intellectuals recognize them, metaphysicals recognize, but those who connect to material world leaders don’t always recognize them.

Some leaders, like a Moses, for example, are recognize often as leaders on every level, so that they can claim the role of leader–materially, intellectually, and metaphysically. Very few leaders achieve all of these levels of recognized leadership.

It’s also possible that some leaders can be recognized by the divine intelligence that cannot be recognized by worldly intelligence. These are leaders also.

Materially recognize leaders have it easier in proving their leadership to a material world seeking leaders.