Revolution
Topic: Political Science
Ever notice how strife breeds greatness?

Every time we've had revolution in this world, a great leader has emerged. Kennedy, Lenin, Lincoln, Arthur... whenever there's been a civil rights revolution, someone, whether it be Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr., has become a people's rallying point.

But did the leader make the revolution, or did the revolution make the people? I'm of the opinion that the latter is true. Imagine being a leader, and suddenly thousands of people look up to you and say "Hey! Help us! Make speeches, get attention, petition, picket, pass laws, help us!" And what are you going to do? You can't look at them and say "But that's so harrrrrrrd!" Thousands of people will find a new leader. And that new leader will be someone that just saw the old leader get his ass handed to him to wear as a hat, and will say "Yep. Passing laws. Petitioning. I'm the Vox Populi, I am, and I... I mean, WE are going to be heard!"

Lincoln was smart about it. When the people said "Pass laws!" he said "How high?" That sparked another revolution. And while The South lost that one, they still hold General Lee as a hero, because he fought for their cause.

Kennedy was also smart about it. General Fulgencio Batista wasn't so smart about it, and Guevara and Castro became the next People's Heroes.

Now, granted, these people had greatness prior to becoming heroes. Read a little bit about El Che, just as an example. But they were also in the right place at the right time, sociopolitically speaking. And, as a result, greatness was thrust upon them.

It's not an instant hero thing. They spent their entire lives becoming greatness material. They'd have been leaders among people no matter what their situation. But people needed them to be more, and so they became more.

Why? Because you do what you have to do. I believe that people become great because they have to do a lot, and because they are able do it.