We both do!
But I have this training in history which means I always try to think objectively.
Folks from the Republican right will say I am not objective between their ideas and the ones I espouse. This is true. But that's because party politics are a flag that flies atop a set of underlying ideas. And I am afraid Republican ideas are often not based on an evidential base.
35 years ago it was a party with ideas that were worth trying. I was in the group that supported trying them. But the results are long since in and the ideas don't work the way they say they do on the bottle.
The folks left believing in those ideas are the ones who don't review the results. You end up with folks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who glibly spout the theories and make enemies of the people who reveal the reality. How many times does a country have to try supply side economics before admitting it doesn't generate a noticeable trickle down effect or stronger growth but it does result in an imbalanced budget and wealth inequality? How long is someone meant to be patient with climate change denial when the theory is broadly supported by scientists and the risk of the theory being right is global catastrophe?
So yes, I am not balanced between the best available theories and the innumerable silly ones.
| 
