What happened to "you have to know the rules to break the rules"?

Sorry if this is long… see the bolded sections for the main question. The rest is context/example.

I know my example may be a bit moot at this point—DeVos’s confirmation vote is tomorrow—but she has a statement on her website’s FAQ that seems especially relevant:

Q: “What are your thoughts regarding specific education policies?”

A: “I am very excited to get to work and to talk about my thoughts and ideas on making American education great again. The status quo is not acceptable. I am committed to transforming our education system into the best in the world. However, out of respect for the United States Senate, it is most appropriate for me to defer expounding on specifics until they begin their confirmation process” (emphasis added).

Actual policies aside, how is it okay for someone planning to serve public office to say, “I’ll tell you later” or “I’ll tell you once I’m in” or “I’ll figure that out later [i.e., once I’m in, or not].”

And, secondly, how has ignorance of issues become evidence that someone is being a free-thinker or a leader of change or whatever you want to call it? Or at least, when did being a “free-thinker” and “leader of change” become an excuse for not knowing relevant issues?

(Again, look to DeVos’s confirmation hearing, where she demonstrated remarkable lack of awareness of various policies and issues in education, returning to transparently stock answers when she got stuck.)

Are these new phenomena? Or just ones that happen to have risen to recent prominence? Or just ones that I’m noticing more but have always been there?