Virtually all politicians operate under the same premise - that they know better how individuals should live their lives than those individuals themselves and, most of all, in what way individuals should be allowed to live their lives except for when they initiate physical harm to others. AND virtually all politicians are determined to make use of government's own legalized authority to initiate such physical harm to anyone in its territory (if not the entire world, as is currently the defacto situation with the USA) in order to make their ideas happen. This is nothing new with the current presidential election or in the US for that matter. This pattern is and has always been the thinking and method of those in government leadership, whether they were elected to their position, appointed by one who was, inherited it by "divine right" or simply took it by force (always with the assistance of those who have no compunction for initiating harm).
The vast majority of politicians, whether newly running for some position or eager to retain it, will say and promise whatever is likely to create an emotional connection with and ultimately a vote in their favor from the particular audience of actual or potential supporters who they are currently addressing. Critical thinking is not something virtually any politician wants in those planning to vote in his/her (hir) jurisdiction. Far from being unusual that verbiage this week is contradictory to what s/he did and/or said last month or last year, this is the defining characteristic of politicians as a species. Not only it is very helpful to them when the majority of constituents do not understand that such occurs, politicians actually count on that to be the case within the myopic constituency to which they wish to appeal. Some politicians may bluff when confronted with their contradictions or ignore the questioners; others will use the technique of double-speak to utter essentially nothing. It is the very rare politician who will provide a detailed unambiguous explanation for why s/he has made a change in position, even though it is still one that is for the purpose of interfering in the voluntary interactions of others using the extorted funds that finances all government activities.
For their continuation as a species, politicians actually require a status relationship of leader/follower with their constituents. Therefore, it is essential for politicians that individuals grow up thinking and continue to hold the view that the most important directions on how to interact with others is something that must come from a government (as it came mostly from religious leaders before the era of modern democratic governments espousing the separation of church and state), otherwise chaos will occur. In this way politicians - whose essential interest is power over others - will be viewed by the vast majority as necessary evils, really trying to do "good", even though there may be some strong disagreements on the specifics of how the controlling mechanism of government will operate.
Without a paradigm shift in thinking about how an orderly society can exist without people being led like sheep by leaders who seek to be or stay in control - even without any institutionalized leaders at all - there will continue to be politicians. And most of these politicians display at least some outward behaviors and verbalize some ideas that can easily become fodder for discussions about which psychiatric labels relate to this or that particular representative of the donkey or elephant (or whatever symbol is used for a political group). What must be realized is that such behavior and ideas are an essential part of this so-called "game" of politics and that it will only disappear when a considerable number of people have sufficiently socially matured to understand and practice individual self-order.
A paradigm shift in thinking from a society based on ruler/ruled to one of self-ordered individuals may be easier for the young than those with 20 and more years of adulthood in the current and longstanding social interaction culture of society. But I won't write off all oldsters since I am 63 and didn't come to some of these conclusions above until less than 10 years ago. So for those who are used to thinking only in the current mode or are relatively new to thinking about such matters at all, step back and deeply consider what is really needed for a society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit. As part of that effort, I suggest a concentrated reading of "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction".