As defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “corruption” is a dishonest or illegal behaviour, especially by powerful people. When talking about politicians and rulers in a society, the term corruption is often brought up, inducing negative feelings about a specific politician in the minds of collective society. Yet, how is it that even with so many people attentive to these methods of corruption, that one politician still has so many voters and supporters? In Richard III, a historical play by William Shakespeare, the author develops the idea that, people determined to get power will take advantage of the gullibility of humanity, using corrupted methods such as fishing for pity, invoking false love in people of benefit, and framing others …show more content…
He plays the victim by expressing how he is furthest in the family line from king due to birth order, which is backed up by Richard bringing up his physical deformity. This creates sympathy in the hearts of the mayor and the citizens, which Richard abuses as he knows that he will be trusted and liked more by the citizens, making it easier for him to be crowned. In the same scene after the first quotation, Richard says, “Alas, why would you heap these cares on me? / I am unfit for state and dignity.” By saying this, Richard makes the mayor feel guilty, as if fate is purposely playing with Richard, and this sympathy is what generates even more gullibility. Sympathy is a common form of manipulation which is seen in politics often, thus it’s important to highlight how sympathy is portrayed in Richard III. Because of the emotional connection that voters feel towards politicians as a result of sympathy, voters often forget the corrupted side of a politician, giving them their vote as they believe that the politician deserves it. Arguably, this was seen in the past national elections, as many people believed Hillary Clinton had gained sympathy votes by sharing her struggles regarding sexism present in the world, and the gullible voters had felt an emotional connection, thus giving her their votes. This historical-modern connection proves