Oh No, She Didn’t: Political Personalities, The Wolves

Political sheep were the focus of my last post. Today, we are looking at political wolves. Now, to be honest, if you took a cross-section of American voters and non-voters, much of who someone “considers” a wolf is based on one’s ideology or party affiliations. Despite having strong views my goal is not to turn this into a political forum, but rather share with you unbiased information about personalities that you can use as a tool to better understand those who would be our leaders.

Wolves

So, what, exactly is the definition of a “wolf”? Well, as one would expect, I got a lot of the animal description such as “canine” and “large dog,” but obviously that isn’t exactly what I was looking for even though I giggled at the many unflattering canine traits that fit some of our current leaders. However, when they got into wolf behavior. . . . I hit the jackpot!! Here we go into some material we can really sink our teeth into:

Wolves . . .

  • live in packs.
  • are fierce.
  • hunt in packs.
  • are predatory.

Live in Packs

It makes sense that animals living in packs (as opposed to a solitary life like a cheetah) have a better survival rate . . . that could be true for politicians when, at work, they form what could be considered a “pack”. Take the nation’s Capitol for example — we have the House of Representatives. It is a pack 435 people strong full of all kinds of different ideas, some good and many bad. The pack mentality is probably one reason so many bad ideas, from both sides of the aisle, survive thus creating a wake of chaos for people like you and me.

house-of-representatives

Or how about this pack whose acronym is actually PAC: C-PAC (Conservative Political Action Committee). Packs like this tend to include people of a more like mind than our motley Congress, but even THEY don’t always see eye-to-eye. But, the important thing to remember is that, as in a real wolf pack, there is a hierarchy in “packs” like the one pictured above. Some people are sheep (as discussed in my last post) while others are wolves. It doesn’t matter what one’s political affiliation is, wolves are everywhere. Since this series defines easily-influenced followers as sheep, we usually see wolves as the ruthless power brokers among their political peers.

Fierce

Wolves in the wild are fierce. They have to be in order to survive. Wolves in politics are fierce when it comes to dealing with their peers. I even think the “worst-of-the-worst” wolves deal fiercely with those they are elected to serve: they lord their power and position OVER the people.  Although any personality can be fierce if you push the right buttons, the choleric tends to be the fiercest overall, plus they are the natural-born leaders. Thus, choleric people tend to morph into political wolves when they become drunk with power. They are the natural-born leaders, but when this wonderful trait crosses the line into a weakness, they want to control everything.

Cholerics are the most mission-minded personality. However, if he or she is not operating from a place of balance, they may do whatever it takes to complete the mission before them. I mentioned the political television series House of Cards in my last post. The main character, Frank Underwood, is a beautiful portrayal of a Washington wolf in action. Lies, deceit, scandal, ruining reputations, controlling perceptions where they are real or not . . . it’s all there. Wolves will go beyond what is appropriate to “prove their point” even when there ISN’T a valid point. One telling thing to watch for in these people is their pattern of attacking opponents PERSONALLY when there is no foundation to support their own position. The wolves main objective is to accomplish their goal . . . no matter the cost. They are fierce.

Hunt in Packs

Just like wolves hunt in packs for the success, politicians are the same way. That is a sanguine trait . . . the more the merrier. I’ve never lived in DC or attended any political galas (except for one many years in New Mexico’s state capitol), but I’ve heard (and read) about how political society works and seen it portrayed in many movies and TV shows. Oh my, the seedy things that can go on in a group of political-minded people. Phlegmatic people and many melancholies would stumble around in that environment, but watch the sanguines work a room, while cholerics work the angle. They were made for pack work. Sometimes the people with the pack don’t necessarily have the best ideas, but because they have the biggest and most social pack, they get more traction with their ideas. Look at any pack that makes an impact: they are full of acceptance-seeking sanguines who often sacrifice “right” for the chance to “belong.” Sanguine personalities want to be where the action is and often become shirttail-riding wolves.

In today’s political environment watch who a politician includes in their pack. Are they thugs? Are they honest? Do they intimidate people? Do they have facts that support their ideas or do they rely on fiercely devaluing people and dishonest debate? Do they build up or tear down as they navigate the world of politics? Do they present their ideas with clarity or base their positions on attacking others? These questions along with considering someone’s personality can help you identify the wolves.

Predatory

According to the definition of predator that automatically popped up at the top of the screen when I did a Google search, predator has two meanings: 1) An animal that naturally preys on others, and 2) A rapacious, exploitative person or group. Both definitions work for a political wolf.

Wolf politicians PREY on others . . . other elected officials (sheep) and/or their own constituents! It isn’t unusual for a pack of national or state politicians to ravenously exploit those they are suppose to represent. Now, again, political affiliations may affect how people see this, but there are unbiased signs to watch for. For example, a predator has his or her own interests at heart . . . in other words, they are selfish and don’t worry about the consequences of certain decisions. Many times they don’t HAVE to worry because they exempt themselves from their own decisions.

Any personality can be affected by this phenomenon, but phlelgmatics are LEAST LIKELY to exhibit this behavior. They are naturally a more diplomatic and considerate personality. Not that they are perfect, but the sanguine, choleric, and melancholy are more prone to look out for their own interests. What to watch for: someone who makes rules that govern others, yet they do not apply to themselves; lack of respect for others; they think the world revolves around themselves; they have BIG EGOS; they talk compassion, but do not walk compassion. This is just a small list, but you get the idea.

Hopefully, this personality information helps you identify the political wolves running amok in powerful places. Overall, the choleric personality is the one most likely to fall into this category, but that doesn’t mean that the other personalities can’t be wolves, too.When analyzing candidates or evaluating current politicians, consider personality first, then apply the traits we see in wolves. You may see things you’ve never noticed before. However, if you learn to identify the “wolf” tendencies of those in strategic leadership positions or running for elected position, it can be a valuable tool to keeping the wolves out of the nation’s “hen house”, by not electing those with damaging personalities into positions of leadership.

PS One more thing that can identify a wolf is their tendency to “howl” . . . or as it could be described in human terms, “bloviating.”

©2013 Shona Neff

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 7th, 2013 at 9:48 pm and is filed under Personalities - Did You Know?, Personalities - Post about all 4, The Personalities - Let's Learn!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 

One Response to “Oh No, She Didn’t: Political Personalities, The Wolves”

  1. Kelley Says:

    Great analogy! And those “packs” can involve the smaller groups like the so-called “gang of fourteen,” or the “gang of eight.” Gang, pack—about the same difference, same negative connotation in a lot of cases. For being the masters at manipulating language, you’d think the politicians would come up with a better term than “gang.” LOL And then there is the hierarchy of behaviors that the wolves display amongst themselves: alpha, beta, and the submissive omega.

Leave a Reply