Leading the Revolution

Yesterday I was watching this incredible movie, Chicago 10: Speak Your Peace, which is about the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, and the protests by liberal groups (specifically, MOBE and the Yippies) because LBJ was not challenged by an anti-war candidate. The movie covers the protests (called riots, but as far as I could see, only due to outrageous behavior by the police) as well as the wholly ridiculous trial of eight men (called the leaders of the riot, tried for conspiracy to incite), including Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bobby Seale and others.

One of the most striking things about this movie, which weaves together footage of the protests with animated reenactments of the trial, is the repeated use of the word leader. Specifically, members in the establishment (the news media, the judge an prosecutor at the trial) repeatedly called Hoffman and others the "leaders" of various conspiracies to cement the state's case against them. Jerry Rubin outright rejects this term, stating that the people aren't "led" to rebel against things that are unjust, but that the people lead themselves. Likewise, Allen Ginsberg, called a "hippie spiritual leader" by the prosecutor, rejects the term, saying that he's simply "being"and not leading anyone everywhere. Indeed, in footage of the rally (legal) followed by the march to the convention (illegal), Ginsberg says that he is going to march (despite the lack of permit), not as a leader, because he is not asking this of anyone else, but as a person, and if there are or are not other persons with him, then so be it (leading by example, perhaps?).

I find all of this rejection fascinating! First, they clearly rejected the title of leader (probably because of how it does not fit well with the philosophy of the groups), but in that they make speeches (in which Jerry Rubin proclaims, "I am not going to get you to do anything you weren't going to do already!") and literally lead marches and rallies, are they not leaders, then? Is the rejection of the title merely strategy, or do they truly believe that they are not leaders, per se, but something else? If we reject the title leader, does it make us 'better people in charge,' or is it like Caesar rejecting the crown three times- is it merely a put-on to inspire one's followers? So-called populist leaders have a fervent following, perhaps because their leader has rejected that term (Sarah Palin rejecting the Governorship?), so that their followers think, "That person isn't a leader, s/he's a person just like me. I'll do what they say."

Needless to say, the rise of populism and decline of want for a true leader is a much longer and more nuanced discussion (you can read about it in Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason, actually), but I wonder if people can truly reject the title of leader, or if it is inherently an act, a put-on, something that will excite the masses into wanting to follow you.