Steve Mensing, Editor
♦ It’s that time of the year when voters best take a very close look at candidates for public office or they will get stuck with someone for several years unsuited for the job. Voters better be aware of manipulative candidates, unprepared and unschooled candidates with inflated aspirations, and individuals unsuited for office due to anomalous brain conditions and emotional disorders. This article will focus on the “The Wolf-in-Sheep’s Clothing Test” and “The Unprepared Candidate’s Test”.
The Wolf-in-Sheep’s Clothing Test:
Just about every election season a wolf or two shows up donning the latest in wool. We’re talking about the wolf-in-sheep’s clothes–those unethical individuals who mislead others by omission, falsely claiming allegiance to a part of the political spectrum, and wearing two faces. These are those people we entrust with our votes, contribute money to their campaigns, and work hard for their election. Then once in office the sheep skins come flying off and they behave in office contrary to their supporter’s interests. If they’re real dyed-in-the-wool wolves they even get angry at us for daring to question their original motives.
Most agree its extremely sleazy to pretend to be someone you’re not and use people to get elected.
These wolves-in-sheep’s clothes or character disordered individuals can be noticed during the pre-election vetting process if we will take the time to ask “difficult” questions and probe these folks backgrounds.
Here is the “Political Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing Test: Vetting the Manipulative Candidate”:
Omission. Does the candidate side-step an important issue? Prior to the campaign, the candidate avoids taking a stance on a very important issue or side-steps the issue by saying they’re undecided about it. Such a response better fire off the alarm bells and red flags. If they avoid such a stance–they will take a stance once elected and its guaranteed to be something you don’t want.
Two-faced. They say one thing to one person and something entirely different to another. Do they speak conveniently? The buzzer is sounding-–a political opportunist is on the loose and they desire to misappropriate your vote.
Falsely claims allegiance to a certain part of the political spectrum. Just before the campaign starts they ask people not to mention they belong to this affiliation. RED FLAGS. They are already donning the wooly robes.
A history of approval seeking. These individuals suffer from approvalitis. They are more likely to wear two faces and falsely claim allegiance to a certain part of the political spectrum just to curry favor.
Who are their regular political allies? Note who they hang with. Are their allies your allies? If not, they will likely support what you don’t want. This is a strong tipoff that Wolfikins is edging up on the henhouse.
How hard have they actually campaigned for people YOU’VE wanted in the past? They didn’t or they were lukewarm? Think about removing this person from your list.
Changeable Charley or flip-flopping on major issues. Often this person wavers back and forth on an issue important to you. Is it indecision? Changing your mind on something is okay–but too much back and forth hints challenges. Are they riding a fence until the right time–their right time and not yours? This is a slippery cousin of omission.
They are employed in jobs notorious for ethical bending and misleading customers. Sales jobs are a blinking light that manipulative folks flutter around. Not a good recommendation.
Do you trust this individual? Does your gut feeling say there’s something off with this individual?
Do they act in visibly manipulative and controlling ways? Be forewarned.
Do they try to quash tough questions? Have they thwarted having tough questions asked at political forums for fear they might get weeded out? A tipoff.
Related RFP articles on sociopaths and “Snakes in Suits Syndrome: White Collar Psychopaths in Politics and Business”:
The “Snakes in Suits Syndrome”: White Collar Psychopaths in Politics and Business
Dealing with the Sociopaths Among Us
The Unprepared Candidate’s Test:
Vetting for the unprepared candidate is a much simpler affair. The unprepared aspirant to public office sticks out like a sore thumb unless the voter is unprepared as well (These are the folks lack who basic discernment and will vote for anyone with an “R” after their name who claims to be a conservative and a follower of a popular religion or they have a “D” after their name and claims to be a progressive and attends ___________. Discerning voters will ask for much more in their candidates.
A legitimate candidate for public office best be quite knowledgeable about the office for which he or she is running and have a demonstrable knowledge of the issues. If they are the real deal they are vitally absorbed in what’s going on in the school board and school system, the county commission, and in city hall. They show up at meetings or watch them from start to finish on video. They are keenly interested in government and can tell you in detail what’s presently occurring in the office they seek. They regularly attend party meetings and not just at election time. They are active in the political process in some way and folks in their own party already know them. They are not “Johnnies Come Lately” or political dilatants.
Here is “The Unprepared Candidate’s Test:
At candidates forums, in the media interviews, and in responding to questions at party meetings they respond with shallow political clichés or go off topic offering a high sounding speech brimming with platitudes. “I want Salisbury to be that bright shinning city on the hill”. “I’m a positive person–I believe in collaboration.”
They are more interested in getting elected than the actual office itself. They tell others privately they want to be congressman or senator in the future even though they little understand the mechanisms of the lower office for which they currently aspire.
Many times the unprepared candidate suffers from “Dunning-Kruger Effect” where self-perception and illusions of superiority trick entertainers, politicians, and cities. The unprepared candidate shows little talent, skill, or knowledge for elected office. Often they have an overblown sense of self.
When blind-sided by a question in public they will fumble at repeating back the question and say it’s a great question in need of a fuller response. They’ll talk up getting back to the questioner when they have the opportunity to review the data.
In forums the unprepared candidate will often sound scripted and tense. Their delivery will be overly fast or very slow as they stumble around for something to say.
