How to Spot a Manipulative Person

There's a contestant on this season's The Biggest Loser that particularly irks me. Tonight I noticed again how manipulative she is. Pondering this reminded me of several other manipulative people I've had the (dis)pleasure of knowing.

As a public service, I present to you this list of ...

Common Traits of Manipulative People

1. The manipulative person thrives on drama.
   They want commotion, upheaval and angst. Maybe they like it this way because it gives them more opportunity to exert their influence.
2. The manipulative person doesn't want to be seen as the cause of the drama.
   While they are often around drama, they'll encourage other people to start or continue the fuss. "You should complain about that ... That's not fair that you've been treated that way ... I wouldn't take that from them if I were you ..." While they like the upheaval, they sense that being the cause of it will reflect poorly on them, costing them the influence they crave.
3. The manipulative person exerts an odd amount of influence on groups.
   I find this the most puzzling. I expect that the manipulator's true colors would show through and others would spot it. But I guess that's the point of manipulation - the stooge doesn't get it. Occasionally you'll see someone momentarily grasp the situation ("I can't believe they got me to do that!"), but it seldom lasts. Partially, this is because the rest of the group is still being led about, so the person with the epiphany puts their distrust away and figures they must be wrong and the group must be right.
4. The manipulative person piggybacks on the credibility or authority of someone else.
   I experienced this firsthand. A manipulator I knew began to lose credibility because of the constant upheaval in their wake. So this person roped in someone else - someone we as a group still trusted - to help present their case. We allowed our group to be led down a path of action because we trusted the second person, though we distrusted the first (the manipulator).
5. The manipulative person quotes others or drops names.
   It's easier to control someone if a crowd agrees with you - or at least you can make it seem like they do! So the manipulator will quote or refer to others in an attempt to bolster his case. He'll drop names. He'll imply he's only acting to help someone else. He'll say that other people - many other people - believe the same way that he does. All the while he's using the amorphous group to manipulate someone into a certain course of action.
6. The manipulative person often portrays himself as a victim.
   This happens in several ways. Sometimes the manipulator suggests that he's acting to protect another. "I wouldn't have said anything, but this person's actions forced me to." On the other hand, once others begin to recognize his actions for what they are, he'll play the martyr card. "Poor me. I'm just speaking the truth and everyone attacks me for it." This does two things - it silences those objecting to the manipulative behavior, and it engenders support from those who have yet to recognize the manipulator for whom he really is. As this progresses, it widens the circle of influence and decrease the effectiveness of those objecting.

There will always be manipulative people trying to get you to do something. Knowing these traits and developing a knack for recognizing them quickly will save you lots of trouble.

It's especially important to recognize this person if you're in a position of influence or authority. If someone can manipulate you, they will steer the course of many other people.

Are there any other traits I missed? Do you recognize these characteristics in yourself? Have you ever found yourself to have been manipulated?

The Most Racist People in America

I'm becoming convinced that liberal African Americans are the most racist group in America.

I hate racism - all of it. It's stupid and wrong, and racists are idiots. Judging someone by the color of their skin or their ethnic background is asinine.

I didn't even want to write this post figuring we were past the ridiculous mudslinging and accusations (foolish me!), but then Morgan Freeman, whom I like as an actor, popped up with his weak and unoriginal argument that the Tea Party (and by extension, all conservatives) only oppose Barack Obama because he's black and they're all racists.

If you missed it, here's what he said in a recent interview with Piers Morgan:

"Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? 'Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.'"

Further he said, "Well, it just shows the weak, dark, underside of America. We’re supposed to be better than that. We really are. That’s, that’s why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected president. 'Ah, look at what we are. Look at how, this is America.' You know? And then it just sort of started turning because these people surfaced like stirring up muddy water."

Morgan Freeman, you're being nothing but a racist.

There are a lot of things that bother me about inflamatory garbage such as this, but I'll focus on the one that bothers me most.

Do you mean to tell me that the only possible reason someone would oppose Obama is because he's black? It couldn't be because they disagree with his liberal policies? It couldn't be his fiscal irresponsibility - how he continues to pile on unbelievable amounts of federal debt with no conscience as to how that's destroying our economy? Conservatives couldn't be reacting to his thuggish behavior in forcing through Obamacare using back room deals, bribery or questionable methods once he didn't have enough votes and the idea was rejected by America?

No, it can only be his race. Nothing else. How stupid!

I wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr. would say to this. He had a dream. Maybe you remember it: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

But liberal blacks won't allow Obama to be judged on the content of his character ... or his policies ... or his conduct. No, for them, anyone who denounces the President is only doing so because of race.

If the Tea Party is racist, why do they love Allen West, the Republican from Florida? On this topic, he said, "When individuals believe they are defeated in a political disagreement, they normally resort to race-baiting, which in my opinion is in itself racist." Amen and amen!

Why does the supposedly racist Tea Party support Herman Cain or J.C. Watts? Why does the Tea Party have the support of Alan Keys, who addresses this very issue here?

The duplicity blows my mind. "TEA" in Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already". Their core values are defined as "Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets". They're a grassroots movement made up of everyone from homemakers to politicians, and are focused on fiscal issues.

Are there racists within the movement? I'm sure there are, just like there are probably racists at your workplace or your church or your local grocery store. But is it the Tea Party focus? No way! They are against Obama, not because he's black, but because he stands for everything they oppose.

But who keeps bringing up race? It's liberal blacks like the Congressional Black Caucus and Jesse Jackson and Morgan Freeman.

Liberals love racism. While the rest of the country wants to move on from the ugly past, they're the ones that don't want to let go. For them, playing the race card is this moment's ultimate weapon. They won't let racism go, because it gives them too much power. It's inflamatory and they can use it to try to make conservatives look bad.

Maybe I can say it simply this way: If you didn't vote for Barack Obama because he's black, then you're an idiot. If you only voted for Obama simply because he's black, you're no better.

If you think only racists oppose Obama, you're being racist yourself.

Romance is in the Eye of the Beholder

I was smitten with Bev from the first moment we met. Her beauty - inside and out - attracted me immediately. She was gorgeous and spiritual and awesome. It didn't take me long to realize that I wanted to know her better.

We met after a Sunday evening church service. She'd just finalized her decision to follow Christ after quite a spiritual journey. I was seventeen years old and about to start my senior year in high school.

That first night I discovered that we conveniently lived in the same small town. Cool! Within a few weeks we became good friends. She shared where she worked and lived.

Since I wanted to see her and talk to her as often as possible, I figured out which route she probably took to get home (she worked only a few blocks from her house), and I knew when she clocked out.

One afternoon, I rode my bike slowly and repeatedly along that pathway waiting for her to pass by so I could "accidentally" run into her. What do you know, she drove past, I flagged her down and we talked for a long time. In fact, it was so long all the gas drained out of her carburetor, the car stalled, and when she couldn't get it restarted, we had to push it to her house!

That was also the first time I got to meet her parents. Her Mom is very perceptive and told me later that she could tell that day that something was up between us.

This has always been a favorite memory for me. It seemed so romantic that I'd want so badly to get her attention that I'd pull a stunt like this.

Not long ago as we drove this same road, I told the story to some of our kids. After all, they should know about the love story of their parents, right? It's important that they understand how I'd seek her and woo her to eventually marry me.

One child's response? "Wow, Dad, you were pretty much a stalker!"

Sigh.

So what do you think the moral of this story is? 

A Republican tells why George W. Bush was a bad president

Love is blind, so they say, and I'd add that partisanship is too.

Partisanship makes normally smart people accept stupid things and endorse actions they'd otherwise condemn. It's why your home team can do no wrong, and why no one can criticize your family except you.

Republicans loved George W. Bush for a lot of reasons, but the biggest may have been that he wasn't Al Gore or John Kerry and he sure wasn't Bill Clinton!

There are a few things I really appreciate about President #43. He was likable - I would have cut off my ears if we had to listen to four years of Al Gore speeches! His steadying presence in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks helped our country through some of its most trying days and earns him a special place in my heart.

He did something that no other president, Republican nor Democrat, ever did - he went after the terrorists! It's hard to hit a moving target, which is why no one else ever launched a "War on Terror". How do you attack an enemy with no borders and no known home base? Bill Clinton occasionally launched a few air strikes and said he was "sending a message", but that was laughably ineffective. No one else had any better ideas.

But when the Towers fell on September 11th, George Bush said that the remaining theme of his presidency was going after the people who committed the atrocities - and he did! By invading Afghanistan he was able to topple the Taliban, and as they say, the rest is history. The war's not over, but he was the only one with the courage to start it!

But since I'm tired of being a Republican homer, I'm going to point out three areas of the Bush presidency that I believe will haunt us for generations.

#1 - I Care Because I Spend

Before GWB, most Republicans stood for fiscal restraint and discipline. At least they usually tried (or pretended to). Democrats on the other hand, believed that they cared more about social issues like education and the poor, and they believed they proved that by spending money - loads of money, boatloads of money - on the problems. Republicans would counter that they cared, but it was foolish to spend what you didn't have, you can't just throw money at problems - yada yada yada. We all know the arguments, so let's not digress.

Bush turned that on its head. I remember listening to his budget presentations where he would propose massive spending increases, throwing money around like the best Democrats (no offense intended, seriously), based on his understanding of "Compassionate Conservatism".

What he really did was cede a major philosophical point - you don't prove you care just because you spend more!

Why is that important? Once spending becomes the benchmark for caring, it becomes a race to see who can spend more. "Hey, vote for me! I care more about [insert cause] than him! Look at how much I want to spend to fix/improve/prevent/overcome it!"

Unless conservatives reverse this philosophy, there won't be a sliver of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

#2 - The War in Iraq

Without a doubt, Saddam Hussein needed to be removed because of his humanitarian abuses. He was a monster of the highest caliber. But there are other monsters, and I am irritated when any politician picks and chooses which monsters to remove based on some arbitrary sliding scale.

If we're going after human rights abusers, what about China's child labor or their "one child per family" policy which results in forced sterilizations and forced abortions? What about confronting Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world about their unbelievably horrible treatment of women ("female genital mutilation", anyone?)?

And this isn't just hindsight being 20/20. As we stood in our kitchen listening to GWB explain to the nation why we were about to invade Iraq, I told Bev that if we don't find weapons of mass destruction, this was going to be a huge mess (I don't remember my exact words. I guess I should have written them down, knowing I was going to be quoted for generations.)  While the connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan was evident, the Iraq connection was, it seemed, circumstantial.

On the home front, how both Congress and the White House handled paying for the two wars is also wrong. Jesus said that when you go to battle, you count the cost - preferably ahead of time. You can't just neglect to put the cost of the wars into the budget as if the money to pay the bills will magically appear. There should also be some arrangement for Iraq to pay us back for the cost to free them from Saddam's tyranny and rebuild the country. Free oil?

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not completely against the Iraq war, and I don't mean to demean what our soldiers in Iraq are doing. They are heroes. But our leadership, especially Bush, dropped the ball.

#3 - The Patriot Act

The great and wise Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I believe the Patriot Act makes this poor trade. We all remember reading George Orwell's 1984 in high school. Do we want to allow our government to become Big Brother?

Because governments are run by corrupt humans, they need oversight and accountability. Government shouldn't be allowed to spy on its people, or detain citizens without due process, or violate their privacy in a plethora of other ways.

This isn't a simple subject. You can't naively expect that terrorists will play by the rules, so governments need the tools to find and stop them. But without accountability, what's to stop those same tools from being turned against you or me if we step over the line?

In conclusion, these three issues weren't simple mistakes during Bush's eight years in office. I believe these three areas will cause problems for years unless they are deliberately reversed.

Which of these issues do you believe is the most damaging? Or am I completely off base? Was George Bush a good president, or did his administration cause lasting harm to America?

Btw, do me a favor and recommend this if you think it's worthwhile. Thanks!

Let's play a game - UNIX style

• BRIAN Really Is A Nerd -or-
• BRIAN Really Isn't a Nerd
• BRIAN Recently Ignores Authentic Nutjobs
• BRIAN Radically Improves Athletic Nights
• BRIAN Rolls In Ancient Napalm