There is a particular pattern that emerges within representative democracies, this pattern emerges because it is exactly how a representative democracy is meant to work. Here it is:
This pattern is completely rational and as I said before it is exactly how a representative democracy is meant to work. However there is often a fourth part of the pattern that is not at all rational and I am tired of seeing and it almost always happens when policy A is controversial.
This is something which I just don't understand, with the exception of emergencies, there is nothing that a representative democracy should ever do that should surprise anyone.* If there is ever a time when you are surprised by politician X starting to implement policy A then it must be assumed that at least one of these things are true: you didn't vote, you didn't properly educate yourself on the election that politician X participated in, or you are miserably terrible at recognizing basic patterns as they play out in real time. If either of the first two of these are true of you than you have no right to be angry about policy A and if the third is true let this article be a wake up call. The only time you really have a right to be angry about policy A is if you were an educated voter who cast their vote against politician X since, in a way, the victory of politician X represents your disenfranchisement from the system, but even when this is the case you should not be surprised, you should have instead been preparing for some (likely crippled) version of policy A to be put in place.
The story of an American ammunition seller is a recent example of this. Following Joe Biden's election they announced that they would not sell to Biden voters. This of course sparked a bit of a controversy among people who were uneducated on Biden's gun policies which if implemented could easily bankrupt this company. It is sad when people are forced to realize the consequences of their vote after it is too late. Among people who understood Biden's proposed policies the announcement this company made made perfect sense.
The same sort of shock in people can be seen concerning Churches staying true to the principles they have taught during their entire existence. People were recently angry that the Catholic church recently formally stated that they would not perform gay marriages. Why is this surprising to anyone? If you have any understanding of God (or if you don't believe in Him you could rephrase this as, "If you have any understanding of how most people of faith understand God") you should know that his principles don't change, it is the principles of the world that do. The Catholic church, along with many others, have recently been encouraging people to be more accepting of people with different lifestyles but people who understand these churches (unlike the people who are mad at statements like these) understand that these encouragements of acceptance are not endorsements.
We should spend time learning to understand the principles, motivations, and plans of people and groups who are of importance in the world and those of people who are of importance in our lives. In the case of politicians, churches, and similar organizations this information should not be hard to find. If we are educated and rational when approaching these sorts of things then we should rarely be shocked at the things they do and say. The first three steps of the pattern above make perfect sense, the fourth is nonsense.
* - I guess there is one more exception to that which is when a politician does something that is contrary to their campaign promises, but given the integrity of the average politician these days this should not surprise anyone either.