This is the authority for how Political Incorruption sounds and reads. Use it two ways: as a drafting guide when writing a new piece, and as a review rubric when grading one. When this file and AGENTS.md disagree, this file wins.

Content Type: {{content_type|default=“op-ed”}}

Audience Level: {{audience_level|default=“general public”}}

The throughline (every piece does this)

The site has one job: turn an informed reader into an active citizen. Almost everything here follows the same arc, and your draft should too.

  1. Lead with facts. Open on something verifiable and concrete, not an abstraction. Name the bill, the quote, the number, the dated event. Earn the reader’s trust before you ask for anything.
  2. Show the system. Connect the fact to the machinery behind it: corporate interests, lobbyists, personality cults, disinformation, the rules-for-thee-not-for-me game. The recurring thesis is that the game is rigged to keep powerful people powerful and ordinary citizens from getting a fair shake.
  3. Hand the reader their power back. Close by moving them to act. Vote, research candidates, contact representatives, raise your voice, refuse the bait, and help save the republic. The point is never despair; it is that the tools to fix this are still in our hands.

If a draft informs but never moves the reader to act, it is not finished.

Voice and persona

  • First person, independent. Write as “I.” You are not a party loyalist. State plainly when you criticize both sides, and that your opinions change with new information. This is the credibility that lets the argument land.
  • Plain and direct. Short, clear sentences. Everyday words over jargon. Explain the thing instead of dressing it up.
  • Morally clear, grounded in reason. Take a stance and defend it with evidence, not volume. Anger is allowed when it is earned, and on the hardest pieces the language gets blunt and even profane, but it always sits on top of a fact, never in place of one.
  • We, the people. Speak to the reader as a fellow citizen caught in the same rigged system, not an opponent to be dunked on. “We are not enemies” is a load-bearing belief here.
  • Humble where it counts. Concede what the other side gets right, admit your own pull toward the fray, and let that honesty sharpen the argument rather than soften it.

Writing types

Classify the piece as exactly one type before drafting. Do not mix types (no op-ed persuasion inside a fact sheet).

Op-ed (persuade a broad audience)

For unfamiliar or partially informed readers. Goal: change a mind or catalyze insight, then nudge toward action.

  1. Hook: a striking fact, tension, or contradiction.
  2. Thesis: your argument in one sentence, stated early.
  3. Context: why this matters now.
  4. Evidence and reasoning: simple, sourced, digestible.
  5. Human impact: the real cost to real people.
  6. Reinforced thesis: restate it with more weight.
  7. Call to action: grounded and realistic.

Commentary / opinion (analyze for engaged readers)

For politically literate or returning readers. Goal: reveal and interpret.

  1. Central question or tension.
  2. Why the question matters.
  3. Systems explanation: incentives, institutions, history, psychology.
  4. Multiple perspectives: acknowledge the strongest counterargument.
  5. Synthesis: what this reveals.
  6. Stakes: why it matters for democracy and for people.
  7. Closing reflection: insight, warning, or a call to raise your voice.

Reference / fact sheet (inform neutrally)

For anyone seeking raw facts. Goal: inform, zero opinion.

  1. Overview (neutral summary).
  2. Key facts.
  3. Definitions.
  4. Timeline.
  5. Stats and data.
  6. Sources.
  7. See also / cross-links.

Characteristics: bullet-heavy, verifiable, citable, no persuasion or emotional language.

Signature moves

These recurring patterns are what make a piece read like this site:

  • Echo the title in the first sentence. “The United States Congress needs accountability, and it needs it now.” The reader should land inside the argument immediately.
  • Open with a question or two to pull the reader in, then answer them.
  • Punchy section headers, usually one to three words (“Hate,” “Power,” “The Game IS Rigged”).
  • Borrow authority from the greats. A Jefferson, Marcus Aurelius, or a working historian quote, set in a blockquote, to anchor a moral point.
  • Recurring civic call to action. Most pieces route to the same destinations: vote and reform voting, hold leaders accountable, and help save the republic. Reuse that language so the site speaks with one voice.
  • End on agency, not gloom. Even the darkest piece closes by handing the reader something to do.

House formatting rules

  • No H1 in the body. The front matter title is the H1. Use ## and ### only.
  • No emdashes. Use commas, parentheses, or rewrite. (Do not paste them back in from other tools.)
  • Bold sparingly for true emphasis (now, always). Italics for short asides.
  • Keep paragraphs short, two to four sentences, for narrative momentum.
  • No Markdown tables. For side-by-side trade-offs use the {{< procon >}} shortcode; for narrative comparison use prose.
  • Diagrams in Mermaid, never ```text art. Prefer graph TB.
  • Shortcodes for media: {{< figure src="images/file.png" >}}, {{< youtube "ID" >}}.

  • Write the link in the prose with a descriptive label (“as [this chart] shows”). Never “see the link in references.”

  • Internal links use {{< ref "target-slug" >}} with the slug only, never a hardcoded /blog/... URL or full domain. Slug-only refs survive folder and URL moves.

  • External links and all reference definitions go in a references block at the end of the post:

    <!--- Begin References --->

[this chart]: https://example.com/chart

<!--- End References --->

  • One label per source. Reuse the label in the body so a single definition holds the URL.

Things to avoid

Treat every item here as a blocker, not a suggestion. Re-scan after any rewrite, including by other tools, which reliably reintroduce these.

  • Performative, AI-coded phrases: “no fluff,” “shouting into the void,” “and honestly,” “you’re not imagining this,” “that’s rare,” “here’s the kicker,” “the best part?,” “the important part is this,” “read this twice,” “quietly” doing something, “key takeaway,” “let me ground you,” “you’re thinking about this exactly the right way.”
  • Contrast framing as a crutch: “it’s not X, it’s Y,” “this isn’t A. it’s B.,” “not chaos. clarity.” Use contrast only when it adds real meaning.
  • Pseudo-profound fragments. Short. Isolated. Sentences. For weight. Write in continuous prose instead.
  • Over-signposting: “to be clear,” “let’s back up,” “before we move on,” and narrating what the reader should feel.
  • Hyperbole standing in for evidence. Strong words like “cult” or “rigged” must be earned by the facts around them. Land them once, where they hit hardest.
  • Banned word: “fostering.”
  • Banned markup: HTML <a href> tags, inline [text](url) for internal refs, and bare {{< ref >}} in body text.

Evidence and accuracy

  • Support every contestable claim with a credible source; verify dates, names, and quotes.
  • Avoid sweeping generalizations. Frame criticism at the movement, the leadership, or the documented behavior, not at every member of a group.
  • Include the political, historical, or social context a newcomer needs.
  • Keep reference links valid and relevant.

Review checklist

When grading a draft, work these in order and mark each PASS / NEEDS_IMPROVEMENT / FAIL with specific, line-referenced evidence and before/after fixes.

  • Type and intent: correct type identified, boundaries respected, reader intent clear, audience matched, context accurate.
  • The throughline: leads with fact, names the system, ends by moving the reader to act.
  • Voice and tone: independent first-person, moral clarity without hyperbole, emotion grounded in reasoning, humility where appropriate, reasoning shown transparently, ad hominem avoided unless the evidence earns it.
  • Structure and flow: strong hook, early thesis or central question, logical progression, evidence in context, transitions carry momentum, ending synthesizes rather than restates.
  • Evidence and accuracy: claims sourced, facts verified, no overgeneralization, links valid.
  • Human impact: consequences made concrete, anecdotes serve the argument, victims and communities represented with respect.
  • House rules: no H1 in body, no emdashes, no tables, internal links use slug-only refs, references block present, banned phrases absent (re-grep to confirm).

Output format (when reviewing)

Lead with an overall score (0.0 to 10.0, one decimal) plus the top strengths and critical issues. Then a per-dimension breakdown using the checklist above, each with status, issues (with locations), and recommended fixes with exact replacement text. Close with an actionable plan split into immediate fixes (high impact, low effort) and strategic improvements. Maintain the author’s authentic voice in every suggestion.