When the Narrative Becomes a Shield
In every election cycle, we see political candidates step onto stages, take microphones at club meetings, or shake hands at town halls — eager to present their “story.” But too often, these moments reveal less about who they truly are and more about how carefully they’ve rehearsed a narrative designed to win votes rather than earn trust.
Many candidates have mastered the art of redirecting. When faced with tough questions, they pivot. They shift the conversation toward safe talking points — economic progress, family values, or “getting things done” — all crafted to project the image they want voters to see. Meanwhile, the real questions from the audience, the ones that matter most to everyday citizens, go unanswered.
But voters don’t have to settle for evasive answers. When a candidate dodges a question at a local event, the conversation doesn’t have to end there. Constituents can follow up by emailing the question directly to the candidate or campaign office. This is not confrontation — it’s participation. And when those questions go ignored, the silence speaks volumes.
If a candidate consistently avoids answering legitimate questions, and instead keeps pushing their preferred storyline, it’s important that local bloggers, civic groups, and engaged citizens document this pattern. Publicly noting that “Candidate X was asked about [specific issue] but declined to answer, choosing instead to promote their campaign narrative” tells voters what they need to know. It signals that the candidate may have an inflated self-image and could be driven more by personal ambition than by a genuine desire to serve.
Psychological Profiling: Spotting the Self-Serving Candidate
There’s real value in looking beyond campaign slogans and analyzing behavioral patterns. Psychology offers helpful cues for identifying when a candidate’s self-image has become inflated or self-serving. These individuals often overemphasize their personal achievements, speak frequently in “I” statements, and deflect responsibility when questioned about past decisions. They tend to view leadership as a stage for validation rather than a platform for service.
In contrast, candidates with a servant-leadership mindset have a consistent track record of putting people before personal gain. They talk about “we,” not “I.” Their history shows collaboration, transparency, and humility. They credit others for success and accept responsibility when things go wrong.
Voters can use a few simple questions to spot the difference:
- Can you give an example of when you admitted a mistake publicly and what you learned from it?
- How have you worked across party lines or with people who disagreed with you to achieve results?
- When did you last advocate for a cause that didn’t benefit you politically or personally?
The answers — or lack thereof — will quickly reveal whether a candidate is focused on serving the public or serving their own career path.
Transparency should never be optional in a democracy. Candidates who seek to represent We the People must be willing to answer the people’s questions — not just the ones that flatter their campaign agenda.
As voters, we must remind every public servant, whether they are elected or running for office for the first time that leadership is not about controlling the narrative. It’s about answering to the people. And We the People demand accountability, honesty, and transparency from those who wish to lead us. As a community, we must remind those who seek to hold public office, regardless of their wealth and background, that they are to serve the people and are not entitled to applauds and admiration just because they hold a title.
Ask the hard questions. It’s your right and duty.