Most policy decisions don’t have clear right and wrong answers, it’s about weighing various competing considerations against one another. Given my values and my priorities, I think I’m probably at least 95% right about the direction that policy needs to go to achieve those priorities.
Okay, let's distinguish between policies that have right or wrong answers (they seek to address generally agreed-upon goals and either succeed or fail in doing so), and policies that simply reflect subjective preferences. (And I'm talking about situations where the populace is roughly evenly split, not where there's a 90-10 disparity.)
In the latter category, policy stuff doesn't matter precisely because there are no objectively right or wrong answers, just subjective preferences. Placing a significant emphasis on achieving your own policy goals, simply because they are your own, seems very much like saving your own dog over a human stranger simply because it is your own. Achieving your own subjective preferences is fine if there's no tradeoff against achieving somebody else's instead, but if there's a tradeoff, it seems like a wash.
In the former category, policy stuff doesn't matter because, even though there may be a right or wrong answer (some fantasy defense will outscore some other fantasy defense), you can't rationally be highly confident that you know which answer is the right one.
People generally think that they're way above average at evaluating controversial policy issues, but people also generally think they're all well-above-average drivers. An awful lot of people are deluding themselves.
It's far easier to evaluate fantasy RBs than Team Defenses because, for example, it's a lot easier to predict which RBs will get a lot of snaps and touches. So spend your first-round pick on a running back, not a defense.
It's very hard to evaluate whether a politician should take this foreign policy position or that one. That's rather complicated. But it's relatively easy to evaluate whether a politician should lie a lot, or obstruct justice, or attack the free press, etc. When politicians create separation from their opponents on the easy stuff, that's what should drive our voting preferences. We're far less likely to make mistakes if we focus on the easy stuff. Controversial policy issues are seldom easy (unless you think "dog" is an easy choice).