True. But a political party is not a principle.
...you don't get to either set them in place, nor do you get to place yours above them.
Principle is meaningful only when it is applied consistently. And that it not just my opinion.
As long as we're doing a bit of a Q & A here, you could tell me your position on drugs such as nicotine and alcohol being legal for consumption.
I would add caffeine to the list. In my opinion these and all other mood altering substances should be legal.
People who use them are harming only themselves. So long as they don't harm anyone else in the process there is no problem.
People raise the "cost to society" argument implying that taxpayers foot the medical bill for drug and alcohol abusers and that impaired drivers cause accidents.
These are separate issues. No one is rightfully responsible for the medical care of a stranger and I gave up on the DUI issue when I realized it was impossible to rationalize jailing a person with a 0.80 BAC and letting a person with a 0.7999 BAC drive home from the sobriety checkpoint.
Regards
J.R.
And that is what creates a political party, many people applying principles consistently.
What appears to confuse you, is the idea that many people may share similar principles, that they may be willing to seek compromise with like-minded individuals and sequentially balance those principles in a manner which places not allowing those gathered together in a party with principles that stand in radical opposition of their own, to gain political offices, and as such, political power, ahead of all other principles, is in fact a principle in and of itself.