Political messaging that separates economic issues (like grocery prices) from the fight for democracy is ineffective. Leaders should instead argue that protecting democracy is the only way to ensure economic stability and prevent servitude to oligarchs, a strategy used by Lincoln and FDR.

The most significant threat to a political ideology comes not from the opposing party, but from the 'lunatics' on its own side. These extreme factions can make the entire group appear foolish and unreasonable, doing more damage to their credibility than any opponent ever could.

A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.

Ideological loyalty is an illusion in politics. Once in power, parties will quickly abandon the very groups that propelled them there if it is politically expedient. Examples include the UK's Labour Party turning on unions and Democrats ignoring BLM after the 2020 election. Power, not principle, is the goal.

Seemingly irrational political decisions can be understood by applying a simple filter: politicians will say or do whatever they believe is necessary to get reelected. This framework decodes behavior better than assuming action is based on principle or for the public good.

When a major ally makes a mistake, the Democratic response is often a pile-on focused on purity tests rather than strategic alignment. This prioritizes social virtue over effectiveness, risks alienating crucial supporters, and stands in contrast to the GOP's lockstep loyalty.

Political parties socialize well-intentioned individuals into a system of professionalized groupthink. The pressures of party loyalty, gaining power, and maintaining a united front lead politicians to engage in acts they would consider immoral on their own, such as lying or supporting policies they disagree with. This habitualized behavior is a core flaw of party politics.

In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”

The defining characteristic of a functional democracy is not who wins, but the behavior of those who lose. A democracy is healthy only when the losing side accepts the result as legitimate and agrees to compete again in the future. The moment losers begin to systematically challenge the fairness of the process, the entire democratic foundation is at risk.