# data[].attributes.body
I think that Weber's discussion of who is active in politics, especially those who pursue politics as a profession, could be enriched if he considered those who don't become active in politics and their reasons for not seeking leadership roles. It seems to me that he is overlooking the importance of an individual's sense of political efficacy; many of those who don't seek political office probably don't think that they have the power or ability to command a following, influence others, or effect change. Some of them might not even think that they have the right to enter the political profession: it's for someone richer, whiter, "better educated," more "masculine," more heteronormative, etc. than them. (And practically, they aren't necessarily wrong in that assumption.) In essence, to seek political power one must already be powerful or perceive themselves as powerful. Why would rich businessmen like President Trump and Michael Bloomberg seek elected office? Part of it might be because it feels natural; they are already used to thinking of themselves as those who can "rule" and "command" (even for noble intentions) others.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading Lichbatha and Zuckerman’s introduction about theories in comparative politics, I notice that the passage introduced a lot about the foci and essences of three different schools in comparative politics: Rationalists, Compartivists, and Structuralists, whereas overlooks their limitations. It is interesting when I find out that the Rationalists theory is highly influenced by and based on the economics perspective  in answering big questions of social thoughts (eg.“who wins and who loses?”).  It emphasizes the incentives of actors on maximizing their own advantages, but it might not explain people’s altruistic behaviors. Also, I aware of the inconsistency between the culturalists and structuralists theory in their perspectives on wether one case is unique or it can be generalized into a greater context. However, it is unclear when should we generalize our understandings and when these understandings are unique to a specific case. I think the article does not explain enough about the limitations of each theory and compare the advantages and weakness between these theories. It might push the readers to take a stance on which theory can best reflect their own view, instead of allowing them to form a more comprehensive viewpoint about the comparative politics.

# data[].attributes.body
Weber's take on the foundation of political power is much like that of "contract" theorists. Authority through force, power dynamics between individuals, and his thoughts on establishing power stem from these contracts. When talking about people who win authority through the domination of others, I saw similarities to the ideas of race and gender contracts. However, I believe Weber neglects to account for reasons these contracts/agreements concerning who wields power are successful. Much of his argument focuses on how the powerful obtain "domination" through an individual lens. Systems like the patriarchy and the "gift of grace" continue to work effectively because of a collective effort. For example, Hobbes believed individuals in a society should concede their power to a supreme authority figure. Hobbes, however, also understood this system could only work through agreement at every level of a political structure. While only certain people may hold power, they do through the permission and the decision (whether conscious or unconscious) of the society they oversee.

# data[].attributes.body
I found that Weber's discussion of force was very interesting. He quotes Trotsky writing that "Every state is founded on force" and says that he agrees with it.  I think that the point made about how the concept of "state" would not exist without force is a great one. Basically, without violence or force there would be no institutions and anarchy would prevail. However, Weber makes the clarification that force is not the only process for a state, but that it is a means specific to s state. I agree with this sentiment and see how it ties into Weber's argument about domination, force, and obeying authority. This theme of of authority and domination manifests itself through all sorts of social and political structure and I'm not sure Weber really makes clear of that.  Also, outside of the three inner justification that legitimize domination, I think there is something to be said for people who simply do not care about political power dynamics and being the subjects of state domination. While state power affects everyone's lives immensely, sometimes people only care about how politics affects their material well being and not necessarily their position within society.

# data[].attributes.body
Lichbach and Zuckerman's research about traditional theory in Comparative Politics has pointed out three basic schools of comparative politics: Rationalists, Culturalists, and Structuralists. All of them have limitations when it comes to making political decisions and analyzing political events historically and contemporarily. These theoretical explanations had given me a broad understanding of several big questions mentioned by authors at the beginning of the article: What rules? Who wins/loses? How is authority challenged? Why are some nations "developed"? Moreover, I noticed that the author stated that it is very important for researchers to do "systematic comparison", which means that we cannot merely use a single country or event to analyze a big question since internal connections between various historical events or other aspects(e.g. economics, culture background, religion, etc. )are close and might bring researchers a brand new perspective when doing academic research.
Weber's article brought me a brief idea about how politicians work as politicians. By depriving necessary materials (e.g. money, military, administrative officials, etc) and allocating them wisely, politicians work to serve a state. Moreover, Weber mentioned what makes up a successful politician. Some of them are born to be a politician.
Overall, however, I am still confused about several details in these two readings.
1. Apart from using Marx's theories, what kinds of theories do structuralists use when doing research?
2.  The author mentioned about "Culturalists rejected any form of covering law or casual accounts". What does it mean?
3. How significant does charisma play when it comes to being a politician?

# data[].attributes.body
Weber’s stance on politics reminds me of Frantz Gabon’s and WEB DuBois’ stances on race because of Weber’s focus on power. All three philosophers equate the state of a people to the concentration of power amongst them. However, Weber focuses on political power rather than social power. While it only makes sense that political power is the focus of political science, I think social power does also have an influence on a nation’s politics. For example, social justice movements often lead people in power to push for policy changes.
The notion that every state was founded on force also reminded me of Fanon, who was a major advocate for violence in the pursuit of social justice. He knew that people in power got to power with force, as Trotsky said, and he knew that people in power never voluntarily give up said power.

# data[].attributes.body
I understood Weber’s take on the definition of the state as very visible in today’s world. The state does not have a concrete definition in this essay as I understood it, but it is usually maintained and led by a charismatic singular person who knows how to use the motives of fear and hope as described in the essay. I think Weber could improve his argument by talking about the fear and hope motivations that could also be driving the leader. For example, the Russian constitution is set up to give the executive, President Putin, the most power over other branches of the government and things limiting this power are written on paper, but not practiced. The poisoning of Alexei Navalny, constitution changes to increase Putin’s stay in power, and random disappearances from the public eye are all symptoms of these fear and hope motivations. The Kremlin is very much alone in his executive position and can most likely not trust those closest to him completely and he is also driven by the hope of keeping his wealth and presidential position. I also think Weber’s argument could benefit from talking more about the internal downsides of being in charge of so much that come with “the prestige-feeling that power gives”. For example, the security precautions world leaders must take fuel a lot of paranoia that then can be seen affecting the citizens of their country. What comes to mind for me is the United States’ history of toppling governments that do not serve American interests. The overthrow of Salvador Allende’s government in Chile directly affected citizens because the next leader was Augusto Pinochet, who then became dictator of Chile from 1973-1990 and committed many crimes against humanity during his time in power.

# data[].attributes.body
Max Weber's connection between state and physical force is a constant issue. As a result, many politicians are reluctant to transfer power or reassess the power of states. Obedience is determined by motives of fear and devotion in leaders. Physical force imposed by states is made to ensure order and keep people from following dangerous inhibitions without consequences. States can not be built effectively without the issuing of rules and politicians to enforce these laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Megan's warm take "You will naturally expect me to take a position on actual problems of the day," Max Weber once stated in " Politics as a vocation ". Weber's comparative politics take examines the world around us, realizing that politics has an impact on all aspects of life, including countries, individuals, policies, institutions, and, most crucially, democracy. The world's political sphere is far larger than one small perspective, and to grasp politics, one must compare and contrast politics within and between countries throughout the world. As someone who has not yet studied comparative government, I am curious to learn more about a branch of political science that immerses you in the world's many political systems. Given this, it's fascinating to learn a well-known political economist like Max Weber takes on the fundamental principles that a politician should possess. Webers' article on the balance between humanity's and leaders' duties makes the viewer ponder if this very idea is the source of most of the world's political turmoil. Is it essential for a political leader to overlook humanity to maintain strict rule? Is it essential for a political leader to disregard accountability for the greater good of his or her citizens' feelings? Following Webber's article, there is a broader takeaway. A comparative politics perspective on the world allows you to examine the minds of political leaders who use politics to their advantage in a variety of ways, either for the good of people or for power.

# data[].attributes.subject
Megan's warm take "You will naturally expect me to take a position on actual problems of the day," Max Weber once stated in " Politics as a vocation ". Weber's comparative politics take examines the world around us, realizing that politics has an impact on all aspects of life, including countries, individuals, policies, institutions, and, most crucially, democracy. The world's political sphere is far larger than one small perspective, and to grasp politics, one must compare and contrast politics within and between countries throughout the world. As someone who has not yet studied comparative government, I am curious to learn more about a branch of political science that immerses you in the world's many political systems. Given this, it's fascinating to learn a well-known political economist like Max Weber takes on the fundamental principles that a politician should possess. Webers' article on the balance between humanity's and leaders' duties makes the viewer ponder if this very idea is the source of most of the world's political turmoil. Is it essential for a political leader to overlook humanity to maintain strict rule? Is it essential for a political leader to disregard accountability for the greater good of his or her citizens' feelings? Following Webber's article, there is a broader takeaway. A comparative politics perspective on the world allows you to examine the minds of political leaders who use politics to their advantage in a variety of ways, either for the good of people or for power.