She’s been labeled a chameleon, someone who lacks a foundational ideology or at least does not hold a deep, abiding reverence for political ideology. The subject here is Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee who appears to be a stone’s throw from becoming the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. Rarely has the American electorate faced such a presidential candidate, and one wonders if it will result in a positive political outcome.
Harris is not in a class all by herself. Others have been able to manage the occasional about-face, but none to quite the extent she has achieved. There is a difference between someone who has flip-flopped on a position or two, but that is not what we’re talking about here.
A chameleon is a reptile that can change colors in order to camouflage itself. The word also refers to “a person who dexterously and expediently changes or adopts opinions,” according to Merriam-Webster, in other words, an “opportunist.” Two 21st-century candidates for president rival Harris in the chameleon arena — one a Democrat and the other a Republican.
John Edwards and His Authenticity Problem
The first is John Edwards, selected by John Kerry in 2004 as his vice-presidential running mate. This came after Edwards lost his bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. The North Carolina senator ran as a populist, claiming there were “two Americas,” but the platform only served to uncover his political posturing. Read this part of his stump speech as reprinted in Mother Jones and decide whom he sounds like today:
“I think there are powerful interests in Washington DC … The entire system is rigged, and it’s rigged against you … From insurance companies to drug companies to oil companies, those people run this country now … And I think you got to take them on and beat them, I don’t think you can sit at a table and negotiate with them. The idea that they are going to voluntarily give away their power … that will never happen …”
The media was able to label Edwards a fraud by reporting about his $400 haircuts and his wealth from a more than ample hedge fund salary. Edwards was painted as a smooth operator who gave lip service to the poor but made millions in litigating civil lawsuits. The bottom line for the senator came when the media stopped buying his rhetoric. Being all things to all people may have advantages, but Edwards is proof that it also comes with serious liabilities.
Mitt: The Chameleon for All Seasons
By the time Mitt Romney ascended to the top of the Republican presidential ticket in 2012, he had already served as the governor of Massachusetts and a senator from Utah. One could say these two states are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. This may be why Romney earned the reputation of prodigious flip-flopper. Early in his political career, Romney took centrist positions, and, while governor, he pushed through a universal health plan that was the model for the one ultimately passed by President Barack Obama. Yet Romney referred to himself as a “severe conservative” in 2012. The Washington Post harkened back to Romney’s rhetoric in 2002 when he said, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone who is moderate, and … my views are progressive.”
It’s worth noting that the chameleon act didn’t turn out well for Romney or Edwards. So why does Harris appear to be following in their footsteps?
Kama, Kama, Kameleon
It could be argued that Harris has outdone both gentlemen in the category of flip-flopping with chameleon-like tendencies. Her changes in public policy, from fracking to immigration, are almost impossible to enumerate. Thus far, Harris has governed as a progressive but is currently effusive about her centrist positions. Her platform has been likened to an Etch-A-Sketch, highlighted with such esoteric principles as “joy, hope, and an opportunity economy.” This chameleon appears to be changing faster than the backgrounds it is supposed to mimic.
In 2023, a University of Minnesota social psychologist wrote an article for the website A Conscious Rethink in which he described a chameleon as someone who tries “to be the right person in the right place at the right time” and who is “minutely and intuitively attuned to the way others respond to them and constantly adapt their own behavior when they feel they’re not creating the right impression.”
His analysis also outlined that chameleons are people who:
“– pay careful attention to social cues, scrutinizing others with keenness so as to know what is expected of them before making a response.
“– try to be as others expect them to be, in order to get along and to be liked.
“ – use their social abilities to mold their appearance as disparate situations demand, so that, as some put it, ‘With different people I act like a very different person.’”
This framework is useful when assessing the leadership qualities necessary for the presidency. Typically, Americans have sought out commanders-in-chief who have a definitive ideological framework for where they want to take the country, are capable of persuading others, have a clear set of values, and often find themselves carrying out unpopular positions for the good of the nation. Should someone with traits that mimic a chameleon become president, it will undoubtedly be a new and different experience for the United States.
