Those kinds of ethos are always "for thee and not for me".

The ethos is mostly bullshit. The bills are paid by the people running extractive industries.

Likewise with the Democratic Party. They care about pronouns because LGBT activists put boots in the ground to get out the vote and raise money. Even though those positions are driving out key demographics (Hispanic voters, middle class males, etc) they need the cash and labor.

You honestly believe gay and trans people are so powerful and wealthy that the democrats are forced to appease them, even though they're literally losing votes to do it?

Well if they were any more open about how much they want to fuel the military-industrial complex through interventionism, that would turn their voter base off.

This follows another Republican ethos:

Tit-for-tat.

This solution to the iterated prisoners dilemma is necessary when dealing with a partner who won’t follow agreed rules — ie, when trust is compromised.

So Republican groups are “defecting too” in response to Democrat actions they believe break agreed upon rules — eg, civil rights and open markets.

I hate this approach. The victim from this sort of political theatre isn’t “democrats”, it’s everyday people who just want a functioning government without this sort of distraction.

Residents of border districts seem to believe that it was to their benefit for politicians to bus immigrants to other cities — because it forced those cities to stop ignoring the problem. Eg, NYC was vocal about demanding more migration until they had to face migrants themselves — now it’s an “emergency”.

I think what you hate about this approach is that it makes you the recipient of the bad policy your elected officials normally inflict on others.

But that’s the point:

You won’t stop voting for politicians who engage in that kind of behavior until you also experience it’s negative effects.

There should be an in group above the law, and an out group controlled by it.