Politicians—most of them, anyway—find themselves needing to change positions from time to time. (There is the occasional exception; I think of Ron Paul, representing minimal-government libertarianism for generations. I don't think he changed his position on anything.) For example, a politician may be a loyal member of a particular political party, which itself has shifted positions; she may even be a loyal lieutenant or operative, called upon to represent the opinions of others as though they were her own. Or circumstances might change: that you advocate tax cuts during a recession should not entail that you advocate them in boom times. Or, over the decades one might see policies one advocated fail, or slowly cultivate more sensitivity to the plight of certain groups. One might be listening to one's constituents, whose opinions, after all, matter in a democracy.
But above all, as we all know, politicians frequently change positions for political convenience. Or that might be too weak; they often change positions because they believe that not to do so would make it difficult or impossible for them to get elected. One classic obvious test of this is how they pivot from primary to general elections: when the shifts happen overnight, more or less, they’re harder to explain in any way other than expediency. On the other hand if they don't manage to shift to some extent, they’re very likely to lose. Both Harris and Trump are providing dramatic examples this year: pretty wild oscillations of positions to try to outflank one another or avoid alienating specific groups.
Harris and Trump are conducting themselves quite similarly. But they are giving different accounts of why they're doing what they're doing. It's true: Trump faced token opposition in the primaries this year, and Harris didn't participate at all. But Harris is dealing with the positions she set out as she geared up for the 2020 primaries, for example on banning fracking, decriminalizing border crossings, and single-payer health insurance. Trump seems to be changing positions on abortion almost daily as the general looms, no doubt thinking about the "suburban women" who are often portrayed as the decisive demographic in presidential elections. A second Trump administration, he's currently insisting, "will be great for women's reproductive rights."
There are various reasons to be concerned when politicians change their minds. One might be looking for, or particularly respect, leaders who lead from conviction, and start to think, as someone changes pretty fundamental policy prescriptions, that they have no actual beliefs. One might also be concerned that what the politician is saying she'll do is not what she'll actually do, because she's not honestly representing her own positions. Or we might be worried that a person who waffles a lot can't be an inspiring leader.
This particular matter is Harris' biggest weakness as a candidate. Dana Bash understood that as she probed Harris on issues during last Friday's interview on CNN. Here is a bit of the key exchange, broaching a matter that will dog Harris throughout the campaign.
BASH: Do you still want to ban fracking?
HARRIS: No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.
BASH: In 2019, I believe in a town hall you said—you were asked, “Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?” and you said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.” So it changed in—in that campaign?
HARRIS: In 2020 I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.
BASH: What made you change that position at the time?
HARRIS: Well, let’s be clear. My values have not changed.
BASH: And was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, “Oh, okay. I get it now”?... Generally speaking, how should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made—that you explained some of here—in your policy? Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you’re running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you’re saying now is going to be your policy moving forward?
HARRIS: Dana, I think the—the—the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.
This is a "brazen it out" approach. She never acknowledged having changed positions on anything, managed to crow about her own consistency, and pledged not to switch (again) "going forward." Not that she ever did before. Meanwhile, the idea that your values can remain the same as you change many fundamental policies is strained at best. What I kept hearing was "My values, if any, have not changed." Or "My values have not changed. I've simply set them aside." The sentence "my values have not changed" is becoming a meme and a joke, as well it ought to.
Trump, in keeping with his persona, is brazen in a different manner. He's fitfully endorsed exceptions to abortion bans for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and expressed his discomfort with extremely tight timelines. He said he'd be voting against Florida's proposed ban after six weeks of pregnancy, for example, then said he'd vote for it. Trump's account of why he's switching around is unprecedented: “You have to go with your heart. But you also have to win elections.” When his opposition killed a bipartisan border bill earlier this year that was supported by many conservative members of his party, Trump gave a similar account of himself. If border security was tightened, he said, that would be a “great gift to the Democrats, and a death wish for the Republican Party.”
These statements are unique in American politics, as far as I know. As so often, on so many matters, no one acknowledges what everyone knows. It’s astonishing that Trump can stand up there and say: well, "I need to get elected and advocating x will make that harder. Therefore, not-x." In portraying himself as a man without convictions, he comes off as honest, to an unprecedented degree, an amazing paradox. In trying to persuade us and possibly herself that the very same values can demand opposite policy positions in different months, on the other hand, Harris is trying to convey consistency of conviction and character, flailing and failing miserably.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that neither of these people is particularly committed to anything, as far as we can now tell. We don't know what they'll do in office; it depends on how it's polling in suburban Philly right then. As Kamala absorbs JD Vance's pro-natalist tax policies and Trump promises free IVF for all, even as they hurl non-stop contentless insults at one another, we ought to be mightily impressed and mightily disgusted by their flexibility. Also a little puzzled about whether and how to vote.
—Follow Crispin Sartwell on X: @crispinsartwell