Vetting, originally used in horse racing, now refers to the process of evaluating political candidates to ensure they are suitable for office. This includes examining their physical health and background to identify any potential liabilities. Failure to disclose past issues can harm a candidate’s chances, and opponents may dig up dirt to discredit them. Thorough checks can prevent surprises and allow for damage control. Candidates with little to reveal about their past fare best, but false accusations can still harm them.
The term vetting comes from the act in horse racing of having horses evaluated by a veterinarian to ensure they are healthy and in good condition to race. Horses with physical problems may not be able to participate in a race as this can pose a risk to the horse and its rider. Certain identifiable conditions could result in a permanent ban from future races.
In politics, the term control is thrown around as easily as advice on who to bet in a horse race. The same term race also applies to the political candidate’s attempt to get elected; think of the terms presidential race, governor race, senatorial race, and you get the picture. The check may indeed include a thorough examination of the candidate’s physical health, but it also includes a significant examination of the candidate’s background to analyze falsehoods the candidate might utter when running for political office and to evaluate potential problems in the candidate’s past history. the candidate who could be a liability in trying to win political office.
Failure to fully disclose issues that have occurred in the past that may be viewed with disapproval by the public, especially when used by the opposing candidate, can easily lose a bid if the past (or present) issue or lingering problem is released to the public. A candidate can defend against false information, which is difficult to predict during the vetting process, but it is difficult to defend against true information.
Parties can work specifically on the candidate evaluation process, but so do independent sources such as the media. In fact, finding something scandalous or objectionable in a candidate’s past can be the work of not just the candidate’s managing party and the media, but opposing candidates and staff as well. Digging dirt on your opponents is standard practice in many political fields to prove that you are the better candidate.
Insufficient scrutiny can easily eliminate a candidate from a race. The discovery of former Senator Gary Hart’s extramarital affair when he was running for the presidential nomination is widely credited with his primary loss to Michael Dukakis. He was heavily favored for the nomination before details of his relationship with Donna Rice were revealed.
Other candidates have suffered when scrutiny of past history reveals unsavory details about their backgrounds. These may include ratings from known associates, financial matters, and false claims made. Applicants can also examine themselves to be able to counter any responsibilities that may arise along the way. Being able to immediately begin damage control on stories that emerge during a campaign can be planned well in advance of these stories (true or false) ever getting out.
Types of checks include thorough background checks, background checks on associates, evaluation of past statements, consideration of financial records and financial records and behaviors of major donors. Candidates tend to fare best when there is little to reveal about their past, but malicious attempts to paint the candidate in a false or unworthy light can still bog them down.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
