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.

A cross-cultural study shows that people are more likely to vote for a policy that hurts the rich, even if it also makes the poor's lives worse. This suggests that resentment toward the wealthy can be a stronger motivator in political decision-making than the desire to improve conditions for the poor.

The famous Trolley Problem isn't just one scenario. Philosophers create subtle variations, like replacing the act of pushing a person with flipping a switch to drop them through a trapdoor. This isolates variables and reveals that our moral objection isn't just about physical contact, but about intentionally using a person as an instrument to achieve a goal.

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.”

Cross-cultural studies show a surprising voter motivation: punishing the wealthy is often a higher priority than improving conditions for the poor. People will support policies that harm everyone, including themselves, as long as they disproportionately harm the rich, revealing that envy can override self-interest.

Evaluate political ideologies based on their historical potential for large-scale harm ("amplitude"), not just a leader's current negative actions. A socialist path, historically leading to mass death, may pose a greater long-term threat than a leader's immediate, but less catastrophic, authoritarian tendencies.

For some voters, a single, clear display of economic incompetence from an administration—such as an advisor failing to explain basic monetary theory—can be a 'radicalizing' event. This can override all other policy considerations and become the primary reason to vote for the opposition.

In times of economic inequality, people are psychologically driven to vote for policies that punish a perceived enemy—like the wealthy or immigrants—rather than those that directly aid the poor. This powerful emotional desire for anger and a villain fuels populist leaders.

Thought experiments like the trolley problem artificially constrain choices to derive a specific intuition. They posit perfect knowledge and ignore the most human response: attempting to find a third option, like breaking the trolley, that avoids the forced choice entirely.