Topic: Political bent obscures reality
The factors involved in any given discussion involving politics don't give a damn if they are right or left or top or bottom. There is a set of factors that influence every given piece of political contention or research. These are numerous and widely distributed throughout the physical world. Psychology, environment, genetics, values, hurricane patterns ffs. A complex analysis needs to take place to get a feel for any given issue, most of the big questions however are abstracted to a point where you cannot get a meaningful analysis with any kind of what can be considered accuracy. It's just conjecture based on intuition and sometimes shaky historical data.
There are some specific problem domains where a specific course of action would probably be best, I think, but then that ignores political and social and environmental contexts to the point where the basic idea might be ideal without mitigating factors, random factors may conspire to produce a situation in which that ideal actually causes the reverse of what we may think it should. We have pretty good measurements for some very specific elements of our society. We can do some pretty high level analysis of some specific problems. But the abstractions get so complex that even a majority of quality papers in that field won't produce a majority opinion in the public. That's both because of ignorance and flaws in the chaotic and somewhat dysfunctional scientific process which allows broken papers to be held up, or even negative results to go unpublished, or selection bias takes place, or important areas of inquiry are ignored, etc.
People essentially tend to come to conclusions on policy issues like so:
1.) I know x to be true. (Weather it is or isn't objectively is irrelevant here.)
2. ) y is a contentious unsolved problem in political discourse
3.) I don't have the technical expertise or knowledge of the problem domain to make a definitive conclusion. (In fact, perhaps nobody does yet.)
4.) I don't have a thorough knowledge of the legislative / political history of this issue and the problems facing implementation of given solutions.
5.) I will then rely on the tenuous connection between x and y, and assume the basic assumptions / principles hold, without proof.
Now, that's sensible as a knee jerk reaction to a given problem. If you don't know, but you can rely on a similar problem or belief, you have some kind of basis for your conclusion and it mitigates a tremendous amount of reading and study. Even a scientist who is an expert in a given problem domain very probably does not have much knowledge of the legislative issues surrounding resolving said issue, or the politics surrounding it, or it's history. And vice versa. The problem is, how often, really, does x and y as defined above actually produce an underlying principle which can be reliably leaned on across the two problem domains? Given my experience, not that often. Sometimes, but it's not reliable enough to make serious decisions based upon that alone.
And we're not even getting into misdirection here. So it's easy to see why politics is such a messy contentious field of human confusion. It's made worse by literally everyone having a serious belief in their own ability to comprehend the given problems. Everyone thinks they *know* the answer, beyond a reasonable doubt. These beliefs rest on various levels of actual requisite knowledge. All the same, even the experts usually seem to lack vital information. Most even admit this, in my experience. Social science is hard to get right.