How Politicians Change or Remain Themselves

One of the interesting aspects of political debates is that it provides an opportunity to compare how candidates act vs how they speak in a primary. In the hubbub of a debate this duality can easily be forgotten. We focus on the words, and we forgot what was done a month, a year, ten years ago. Everyone that stands on the debate stage, both Democrat and Republican, have a long history of action (or sometimes inaction). Too often we ignore this as the debate rages. But its crucial that we compare each candidates dual accounts of speech and action to determine the true politician. To do this it might be best to create categories, instead of looking at each candidate individually. With categories you can take the information you see and apply it on your own.

If we are comparing speech and action there are three main categories.

Steady
First there are those whose speech and action are consistent. Sure, over decades a politician's policy can change dramatically, but we are looking for consistency within a reasonable time period. Most obviously, candidates that are pandering for the primary are not in this category.

Evolve
Next there are those who change gradually. Normally it's clear which way they are moving. It could be a move from a radical position to a centrist ideology, or the other way around. The current buzzword for this in politics seems to be “evolving”. As in, my position is evolving on gay rights. Politicians don't seem to like to use the word change, because then they can be accused of the dreaded flip-flop.

Change
Finally there are those who change everything. They will 180 positions, like changing from pro-life to pro-choice. They won't only alter one position but as many as needed to appeal to the new demographic.

What are the pros and cons of each position?

Some of us like consistency. It makes us feel like we know where the candidate is on the issues. It has a ring of authenticity that the espoused ideas are sincerely held. We feel that the holder of these views are trustworthy because they have not deviated in the past. If a candidate has changed their politics in a short period of time, we can't know if they will hold these new opinions for long.

Some of us like candidates that change their mind, as long as they change it to fit our own. Evolving politicians offer a developing point of view that may continue progressing. Its like the candidate is saying, “I'm thinking about accepting X, and if I do then I will consider Y, and finally if I make it all the way I'll look at Z”. If you already believe Z then you are more likely to vote for them, even though they haven't even accepted Y. At the same time, voters who only like X can console themselves that the candidate hasn't necessarily moved past them. It is a style that tries to capture a broad coalition without committing to a centrist or radical position. It also allows the voter to feel that they are impacting the candidate. It provides a feeling of control and input on the politician. As the public makes their views heard they see their candidate move with them, or at least consider the change.

Look, I'm going to try to be objective here, but I can't see any positive aspects to a Change Candidate. But, I'm going to try. The few politicians that succeed in this style do so in spite of it. They are using this to find a new constituency. For some reason their previous positions or constituency no longer suit their purposes. Probably they are trying to appeal to a larger voting base then before. Or they sense a change in the political wind. Some voters may find this engaging because the candidate strongly embraces their new positions. Though to most it seems phony and inconsistent, to a minority the candidate's new found vigor and enthusiasm attract voter to politician.

If we apply these musings to this years primary we can hopefully place candidates into these three categories. Looking at this year's primary process it seems that between the top two Republicans (Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz) and the top two Democrats (Hillary Clinton/ Bernie Sanders) we have all three; the steady, the evolver, and the changer. Since I have a preference for one of the three, I am initially surprised that all three find success.

Obviously there is much more to a candidate's success than whether they are consistent, evolving, or changing quickly in their policy, but it is a critical aspect especially when viewing the debates. You shouldn't vote for someone whose policies you dislike even if they fit the category that you desire. Did they repudiate past action, and should you believe them if they did? Did they move to become a radical for the primary, even though in truth they were a reasonable person before the madness infected their brain?

So its up to you. Who would you place in each category and which of the three do you find most appealing? Following are my three categories.

Steady
Sanders
Paul
Santorum
Kasich

Evolve
Clinton (moved from moderate liberal to the left)
Bush (moved from moderate conservative to the right)
Cruz (moved from serious conservative further right)
Rubio (moved from moderate conservative to the right)
Christie (moved from moderate conservative to the right)
Huckabee (moved from serious conservative further to the right)

Change
Trump (changed many policies from liberal leaning to seriously conservative)

Other (I don't know or they are just out there)
Carson


Comments