Election Chameleons: It’s manipulative for politicians to change their stance on issues just to get more votes

“EVERYONE KNOWS I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL ABORTION BAN, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WOULD, IN FACT, VETO IT, BECAUSE IT IS UP TO THE STATES”

This is an official professional campaign statement — a literal X post— from former president Donald Trump about his policy towards the reproductive rights of women posted on Oct. 1. 

To those new to the realm of politics, this seems like a set-in-stone position, but after a simple 5-minute Google search on his past policies, it’s clear that Trump’s just another politician following the manipulative trend of changing stances on issues just to appeal to voters.

New voters often don’t know the history of candidates and their policies, making them susceptible to politicians flip-flopping positions to win elections with no real commitment to keeping their word. 

In Trump’s case you really can’t tell where his commitments lie because, for someone confident enough to yell about his future policy all over X, Trump couldn’t answer with a simple “yes” or “no” when repeatedly asked whether he would veto a nationwide abortion ban at the Presidential Debate. When you look at the receipts, Trump even called on the Senate to pass a possible 20-week abortion ban during the pro-life March for Life convention in 2018, according to The Hill.

Women’s reproductive rights have always been a hot topic during election season and it’s no wonder that recent polls indicate Trump is somehow struggling to gain female voters after taking away their reproductive rights, According to ABC News and the Independent Polling System Of Society. 

So now Trump is playing the classic “what do you want to hear?” game that politicians rely on during tight races — ultimately toying with the American people’s votes.

Voters deserve transparency and straightforwardness — without it, the voter is left to navigate a fog of half-truths and ambiguous promises.

In an ideal world, clarity and honesty would be paramount in high-stakes political elections. However, many politicians resort to the manipulation of altering or obscuring their policies and views to secure votes. This tactic — seemingly a necessary evil in the pursuit of political success — undermines the very essence of the republic. There’s no way to rule by the will of the people if politicians don’t stay consistent with their policies. 

Harris is also just as guilty of flip-flopping — she’s switched up on a few of her original policies from the Biden Administration simply to appeal to more conservative voters. 

According to a September New York Times and Siena College poll, 44% of respondents viewed Harris as “too liberal or progressive.” Harris has now pivoted on certain positions since replacing President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.

A major Harris flip-flop was her stance on fracking. While running in the 2020 Democratic primary election Harris was practically every oil company’s greatest fear, as she claimed there was “no question” that she was in favor of banning fracking, largely due to the impact it has on climate change. 

However, during the presidential candidate debate, Harris made it clear she’s now completely against a ban on fracking — coincidently fracking has become increasingly central to the swing state of Pennsylvania’s economy, according to Council on Foreign Relations. It’s interesting how those environmental harms disappear as soon as the polling gets a bit tight.

In a CNN interview, Harris defended her change in policy by arguing that a green economy is still possible without banning fracking, but the explanation of how environment-destroying fracking will be able to coexist in Harris’s green economy oasis was practically non-existent. 

Pro-fracking voters from states like Pennsylvania could get to see fracking continue in Harris’s economy or environmentally-focused voters could get to see fracking die out in Harris’s economy — but both cannot happen. Either way, when politicians like Harris use this shape-shifting approach to try to get the best of both worlds in terms of voters it leaves only one group with their vote leading to the policy they truly wanted. 

Voters then find themselves supporting candidates based on their projections rather than solid commitments. This lack of clarity also allows politicians to shift their stance post-election without facing immediate backlash — the ultimate get-of-jail-free card. 

Essentially, the American people are interviewing politicians for the privilege of representing them, but these politicians are lying about their resumes. It may get them the job but inevitably they’ll never be able to do all the work they promised to do, with such contradicting stances. The vital difference is these politicians’ job expectations aren’t to work on PowerPoint presentations but to lead the United States of America. 

To combat the manipulative tactics employed during election campaigns, all voters must become more informed and discerning. Engaging critically with political rhetoric and seeking clarity through fact-checking current promises with past actions is the only way for voters to understand the possibilities of politicians reversing their stance once elected, and to make their choices from there. 

For first-time voters specifically, when stepping into the chaos of politics it’s important to realize that the election season doesn’t just start during the election year. Make sure to research the background of potential candidates and possible contradictory policies they may have made that could impede their actions in office.

Sadly, no matter how much you should be able to trust the next president of our country or the next senator representing your rights in D.C., you need to fact-check them. 

After you have an understanding of conflicting policies for a politician, it’s up to you to decide if you want to take the risk when voting. This decision becomes easier, however, when you do more in-depth research into why a politician switched views. 

If it seems like one day they just woke up and decided that a change was needed, maybe save your vote for a person with a genuine concern for political priorities.