One idea I have is to draw on the idea of "prefiguraritve politics" that was current in the Occupy movement (but which has a much longer history than that.) It says that the relationships, organization, and tactics of an activist movement should reflect the kind of society they want to create. If we want to avoid recreating the unequal power relationships of our present society, they said, we must avoid them in our own organization too. Historically, it has never happened that an authoritarian revolutionary movement has created an open society.
By the same token, I think, a politics that depends for its base motivation and strategic vision on arousing anger at the perpetrators of evil is likely to implement the same kind of politics once (if ever) it takes power. There will always be a new target of this "othering" -- there must be a new target, because that's how this operating system works. The story of good versus evil needs something to fill those roles: good=self, evil=other. (Of course, the same drama usually plays out internally against alienated parts of the self, but I don't think I want to go into those complexities.)
George Orwell illustrated the perils of this very nicely in 1984. Winston and Julia are being recruited into the revolutionary Brotherhood (or so they think), and are asked a series of questions by O'Brien:
"You are prepared to commit murder?"
"To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?"
"To betray your country to foreign powers?"
"You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases -- to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?"
"If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face -- are you prepared to do that?"
In this interview he is shown to be of one and the same mind as the Party -- justifying any means with an abstract end of a better world, but that inevitably turns toward power instead.
I look at various political organizations -- the way they treat each other, the way the handle disputes, their ability to get things done -- and I think, "Would I want these guys to be in charge? Would I want to live in a society like that?" I always have to say no (although some are an improvement on what we have today.) In some of them I catch glimpses of a beautiful possibility amid lots of failed experiments or, shall we say, learning experiences.
The kind of politics I want to participate in sees each person, the planet, and all its beings through they eyes of love, connection, relatedness, interbeingness. While I question the categorical rejection of hierarchy and leadership and think that in social organisms, as in biological ones, there is a place for exclusion, they needn't be founded on the paradigm of overcoming the enemy.
A society built on love will not be built through means that are not loving. That means we need to extend our conception of the political. OK, I hope you see where I'm going with this. Gotta go now.