To the everyday person, the contradictions that come from one party or the other can leave us with whiplash and a sense of longing to try and understand what the hell just happened. Or, we are faced with a claim that is false, we all know it is false, and yet it is paraded even louder as the "truth."
Politics can bring out some strange creatures and in recent years, a new kind of political animal has emerged - the social chameleon.
These are individuals who are able to seamlessly adapt their political views to match those around them. They are the ultimate political survivors, able to blend in and avoid being ostracized.
The chameleon personality type can walk into a room, quickly pick up on the expectations of those around them and become the life of the party or a quiet, thoughtful participant, or whatever they need to be.
However, while their ability to blend in can be impressive, it raises some interesting questions about the impact these individuals have on political narratives. Get ready to dive into a world where adaptability reigns supreme, and paradoxes abound.
The role of social chameleons in political narratives
Defining the term social chameleons is crucial to understanding their role in political narratives. These are individuals who effortlessly adapt their opinions, beliefs, and actions to fit into different social groups.
In the political context, social chameleons often switch sides to support opposing ideologies, depending on which group they want to belong to or which gains them the most advantage. Their ability to adapt to different political ideologies is a key characteristic that makes them valuable to political campaigns.
To the average citizen, their support of opposing ideologies is confusing. On one hand, you have the Democrats claiming to be the party of "unity" and "inclusion" in one breath, and in the next, they are screaming down conservatives and calling them "Nazis" and explaining that there is no tolerance allowed for their conservative beliefs.
Political hypocrisy or hypocrisy in policy refers to any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide. Modern political debate is often characterized by accusations and counter-accusations of hypocrisy.
The Native American Indians have an expression called “speaks with forked tongue” to describe someone who says one thing but means another thing. The Bible’s term for “forked tongue” is “double tongued,” which means hypocritical and deceitful.
Many of the politicians that you see today are comparable to the double-tongued hypocrites that the bible speaks of. One could logically conclude that social chameleons fall into this category as well once they are forced to become hypocrites.
Many politicians believe the only way to overcome the intractable divisions is to seize political power by virtually any means, including saying one thing while doing another, lying, pointing fingers for imaginary crimes while committing the crime themselves, and intimidating the other side into silence.
What is Democracy when you allow only one viewpoint to stand as legitimate? Without the social chameleons, the chosen approved viewpoint would have to stand after forcing the other viewpoint to their knees which would come at a great risk of rebellion by the masses.
Social chameleons serve as convenient tools to sway public opinion, as they are adept at blending in and influencing their surroundings. Yet, their influence on public opinion may not always be positive, as they often embrace contradictory and conflicting positions in their efforts to fit in with different groups.
Their impact on political discourse is also significant, as they tend to fuel divisions and polarise political debates. Their tendency to switch allegiances at will can create uncertainty and instability in political spheres.
Moreover, their actions can lead to a perception of hypocrisy and opportunism, which could potentially harm the credibility of political institutions. These issues highlight the paradoxical impact of social chameleons on political narratives.
While their adaptability can make them useful tools for political actors, it comes at the cost of creating disharmony and instability within political systems.
However, it is important to note that there are situations in which this adaptability may prove beneficial, such as when individuals are trying to bridge divides or create a consensus between opposing groups, but I would argue that in these instances, diplomacy is greater than changing colors to adapt to your surroundings. After all, the surroundings change often. Who can trust a person that can change course so easily?
The challenge of dealing with social chameleons lies in identifying their true intentions and principles which can be difficult as they are hidden beneath the web of ever-changing ideals.
Political actors need to be wary of those who appear to be persuadable and adaptable and ensure that they remain transparent in their political positions.
Maintaining transparency can help to mitigate the negative impact of social chameleons by providing a more stable and trustworthy political environment but this also exposes the individual to criticism for their evolving narratives.
The paradoxical impact
Social chameleons, the ultimate shape-shifters of social politics, can adapt to any political group regardless of their ideological beliefs. They can sway their opinions and ethics to fit into a particular group, giving them immense power to control political narratives.
However, their behavior presents an inherent contradiction that creates a paradoxical impact. On one hand, their ability to adapt makes them crucial assets in facilitating political dialogue and reaching a consensus.
Their flexibility allows them to navigate complex and often volatile issues that are critical to defining a political party's ethos.
The negative impact is manifested by the lack of a clear and defined set of truths and ideologies that defines the political group. The ever-changing nature of their beliefs erodes public trust and confuses the political discourse.
When they try to please everyone, they please no one, leaving a void in their political group's credibility and integrity. Notably, social chameleons can still have a positive impact on politics in certain situations.
Alexander Hamilton and Malcolm X once said, “A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything,” which means if you don't have any principles in place, then you don't have any values or things that you hold dear, then you'll accept all.
In fact, numerous influential people have parroted the same sentiment throughout the years. Why? Because it is true.
Dealing with social chameleons in politics is no easy feat. Their ability to adapt to different political ideologies makes it hard to pin them down and know where they truly stand. Strategies to deal with their behavior are thus important.
Social chameleons excel at manipulating public opinion by playing up to personalities or celebrity endorsements. However, if the focus is on policies and the impact they will have, then it becomes harder for social chameleons to maneuver. This approach can also help promote healthy discourse rather than political mudslinging.
The ethical implications
Let's face it, politics is a murky business. It's hard to tell who stands for what, and what they'll do once they're in power. Social chameleons can be seen as master navigators. They can switch political ideologies with ease, depending on the situation at hand.
But is their adaptability morally sound? Should their comfort with switching colors be a cause for concern? It's an interesting question and one that demands a nuanced answer. On one hand, adapting to different political ideologies can help in building consensus. It can also provide a fresh perspective and help in implementing better policies.
On the other hand, it can lead to a loss of trust in politicians and can be seen as a sign of opportunism. The implications of social chameleons on public trust should not be underestimated. People want to know that the people they're voting for are genuine in their beliefs, and that they are not just empty suits.
The question of what is ethical in politics is undoubtedly a complex one and different viewpoints can coexist side to side, but without public trust and accountability to the public, politics could be a single-minded and selfish pursuit.
