Response to DelGandio

DelGandio's ideas are creative and inspiring, and I appreciate the import to which he gives 21st century radicalism/activism. He calls for rhetorical action, stating that while our ideas and movements have the right thing in mind, 21st century activists do not communicate effectively. I agree with DelGandio's call to action, but I do not think his argument is sufficiently presented. He claims that 21st century activism has taken on a different form, that we no longer need recognizable figure heads to lead our movements and instead should rely on the communal power of a global network of local, organized movements. While I don't necessarily disagree with DelGandio, I don't think that he effectively responds to challenges against such a claim.
DelGandio argues that modern day activism is not effective because we do not communicate effectively. However, one might argue that while this is an issue to address, it does not completely solve the problem. He states that the lack of notable figures is due to unfocused media attention and political dismissal. But couldn't it just be the lack of inspiring figures that is causing the lack of inspiring figures? While I agree with DelGandio that 21st century activism must rely on a globalized network of communication, I maintain that recognizable figures are of great importance within the realm of activism. Sure, we aren't rhetoricizing effectively, but is a large number of pretty good rhetors better than a few with an advanced proficiency? Those who are capable of moving huge masses with single speeches or actions? My idealized direction for activism is one that includes both effective communication throughout groups as well as single, inspiring figures.
Regardless, DelGandio's writing is moving, and I enjoyed reading such a passionate author. It was interesting contrasting his definition with Longaker and Walker's; I see the former as more idealistic and the latter as pragmatically analytic.