Unlike established systems with clear rules (like Christianity), the modern left operates on "vague vibes" of ideological purity. This lack of a self-regulation mechanism creates a constant pressure to prove loyalty through extremism. As standards escalate, anyone who could provide a moderating influence is purged, leading to an endless cycle of radicalization.

A destructive political pattern emerges where one party's well-intentioned but poorly executed policies (e.g., DEI initiatives) are used by the opposition as justification for a disproportionately extreme and damaging 'nuclear' response. This escalatory cycle benefits demagogues and harms effective governance.

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.

Stakeholders demand courageous leadership but foster a culture of intolerance. By failing to distinguish between major offenses and minor infractions and "canceling" leaders for mistakes, the public itself disincentivizes the very courage and authenticity it seeks, creating a paralyzing circular problem.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

A radical policy proposal, like seizing university endowments for reparations, can be a strategic move to create internal conflict within a political coalition by forcing two key demographics (e.g., progressive students and African Americans) into a zero-sum conflict over resources and status.

The best political outcomes emerge when an opposing party acts as a 'red team,' rigorously challenging policy ideas. When one side abandons substantive policy debate, the entire system's ability to solve complex problems degrades because ideas are no longer pressure-tested against honest opposition.

The current political dynamic, where one side consistently forgives norm violations, is unsustainable. Game theory suggests a better strategy is 'tit-for-tat with forgiveness': respond in kind to adversarial actions to establish consequences, but also offer an off-ramp back to cooperation. This is more stable than endless retaliation.