Fair enough, partisanship in itself is fairly obviously a negative psychological and mental force. But I do worry about claims of anti-partisanship used as a s

Fair enough, partisanship in itself is fairly obviously a negative psychological and mental force. But I do worry about claims of anti-partisanship used as a smokescreen. Some issues are merely partisan differences of opinion. Others are matters of life and death. I don't object to child incarceration, denial of refugees or revocation of citizenship for minorities because I love the Democratic party, I do it because it's wrong and to cast these issues in the light of mere "partisan politics" is to deny their significance. Yes, partisanship is a strong cognitive bias. That should be uncontroversial. But that still doesn't mean that at a particular moment in history, a particular political party can't be very VERY clearly in the moral and intellectual wrong. Given arbitrary points A and B, you can't just state that an unbiased person always adheres to (abs(A-B)/2). That's ridiculous, and makes you susceptible to all kinds of goalpost and Overton-window shifting. The whole point is that you have to address each issue on its own intellectual merits, and I feel like a lot of the anti-partisan content out there this year (particularly from conservative/libertarian sources like this one) is less focused on the truth of the matter and more on granting a patina of legitimacy to ideas that would otherwise be, well, wrong.