Skip to footer

How 'evolved' got to be the new 'flip-flopped' in presidential campaigns

Many of the 2016 presidential candidates could be said to have 'evolved.' Marco Rubio and Scott Walker once supported a limited path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but now they don't.

|
David Goldman/AP
Republican presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks at the RedState Gathering Aug. 8, 2015, in Atlanta.
  • By Chuck McCutcheon Voices contributor
  • David Mark Voices contributor

“Evolve.” Politicians’ euphemism to explain their shifts on issues when public opinion changes.

Politicians, of course, never want to admit to having been wrong. “Evolve” helps them portray themselves as serious, enlightened, and open-minded, while putting a considerable distance between themselves and what they once believed.

“The use of ‘evolve’ as a euphemism continues a long tradition among public figures, namely, framing uncomfortable revelations in a way that diminishes their own role in them,” New York Times political writer and “This Town” author Mark Leibovich observed.

Of the 2016 White House hopefuls, tycoon Donald Trump has been the most open evolver. At last week’s presidential debate, co-moderator Megyn Kelly of Fox News pressed Trump on just when he actually became a Republican – considering that he has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, that Hillary Clinton was a guest at his (third) wedding, and that he had switched his views to opposing abortion rights, among other policy changes.

“I’ll tell you what: I’ve evolved on many issues over the years. And you know who else has? Ronald Reagan evolved on many issues,” Trump replied, showing his the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach to campaigning.

The most blatant evolution of recent years has been President Obama’s change of heart over same-sex marriage – which, before it occurred, inspired progressive champion Elizabeth Warren and many others on the left to publicly prod him. “I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right,” said Warren in 2012, when she was running for the US Senate in Massachusetts.

Many of the other 2016 candidates could be said to have evolved. Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida once favored at least a limited pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrations, but he reversed course under pressure from Republican activists. Or consider Bobby Jindal, who as Louisiana governor flipped his approach to Common Core federal education standards. Louisiana adopted them in 2010 with Jindal’s blessing. But he later disowned the initiative as the presidential race loomed and likely conservative primary voters expressed vehement opposition.

But perhaps in an attempt to avoid sounding too much like Obama, those candidates appear to be staying away from actually saying the word. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), for one, was extremely up front about his shift on immigration policy.

Walker had, for more than a decade, supported at least some form of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but he took a different tack when his presidential bid got under way. “My view has changed; I’m flat-out saying it,” Walker told host Chris Wallace in March.

Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark write their "Speaking Politics" blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to How 'evolved' got to be the new 'flip-flopped' in presidential campaigns
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0810/How-evolved-got-to-be-the-new-flip-flopped-in-presidential-campaigns
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe