Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.

A political party might intentionally trigger a government shutdown not to win policy concessions, but to create a public narrative of a dysfunctional opposition. The true victory isn't legislative but reputational, aiming to sway voters in upcoming elections by making the ruling party look incompetent.

Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.

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.

Viewing politicians as athletes in a game reveals their true motivation: gaining and retaining power. This framework explains seemingly inconsistent actions, like flip-flopping, as strategic plays for short-term public sentiment rather than reflections of moral conviction or long-term vision.

A deep distrust of the bipartisan "neoliberal consensus" has made many young people receptive to any counter-narrative, whether from the left or right. This creates a powerful anti-establishment bloc that finds common ground in opposing the status quo, explaining the crossover appeal of populist figures.

From a branding perspective, voters value consistency, even if they disagree with the platform. A politician who flip-flops, like John Kerry, is seen as weak and unprincipled. Therefore, Marjorie Taylor Greene's sudden pivot away from Trump is a high-risk branding move that defies conventional political wisdom about adapting to sentiment.