AUTHOR’S NOTE: In his book Tarot Reading Explained, James Ricklef mentioned that, when he began practicing tarot divination on prominent public figures in support of his American Tarot Association column, he chose not to read about those who were still living, under the assumption that it would constitute an invasion of privacy and could result in legal consequences if he published his results. I have a few thoughts of my own on this subject.

It seems to me that any individual who conducts official business or pushes a self-promotional agenda in the public eye has forfeited any claim to privacy related to those actions as long as no attempt is made by detractors to discredit the individual via censorious criticism (i.e. unfounded slander or libel). It’s called “right-to-know” on one hand and “freedom-of-speech” on the other.

The best example I can think of is the politician, whose public-service history should be an open book for potential voters to pick apart in search of credibility or lack thereof. Next would be Hollywood types who are always sticking their faces in front of a camera or microphone to make their political and social stance known despite having no apparent qualifications other than popularity for doing so. Social-media “influencers” as a group often fit this demographic profile as well. It brings to mind the old joke about opinions being like “orifices of elimination” (not the mouth, although it can seem like they’re talking out of them): everybody has one.

I’ve performed numerous readings for national and international events involving important people, and in every case I “just read the cards” (or in horary astrology, the chart), making no effort to editorialize or moralize on what I saw. The most compelling instance I can cite is the 2024 US Presidential election, about which I completed tarot and horary astrology readings for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. While a cynic can point out the weakness of the Harris campaign and observe that Trump had negative baggage of his own, the readings unequivocally favored Trump to win, and the horary charts were particularly revealing. (I posted previously on my coverage of the election.)

Any diviner who decides to approach this topic must walk a fine line between what the individual’s public posture and track record indicate and what the prediction reveals about his or her intentions. The challenge then is to present the conclusion in language that is appropriately neutral in tone. Although I spent almost three years in Europe in the late ’60s and saw absolutely no reason – at least at the sociopolitical level – why a “European Union” was necessary, when I did readings on the proposal of Boris Johnson to implement the Brexit initiative I didn’t look at the pros and cons of going either way, just at the testimony of the cards which made it clear that Johnson was going to prevail.

If done properly and interpreted competently, a reading usually won’t hedge on providing a definitive answer, so it’s up to the reader’s discretion and sense of propriety regarding just what and how much should be said about it in an open forum. But as the old aphorism goes for those who would stick their oar in the water of public opprobrium: “Stay out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat.”

As I understand it, there are no legitimate taboos against stepping on the toes of anyone in the public arena as long as a fair and accurate assessment of the situation is achieved and duly presented with no rancor or malice (and, it goes without saying, no litigious content). The cards certainly won’t be spiteful about it, so the reader should avoid doing the same while still remaining alert for possible legal entanglements.

The less opinionated we are, the safer from blow-back we will be, and I’m far more committed to being thorough in the analysis than correct in the conclusion because current events are invariably a moving target. What is true today may be false tomorrow in the world of the political or social chameleon.