Neither Rube Nor Demon

The pyrrhonist isn't certain of much of anything, but he does know this: pretenses to the moral and intellectual high ground are usually false.

Suppose you're presented with 2 menus:  Menu A consists of 2 appetizers (say Fried Calamari and Oysters on the Half Shell), 3 main entrees (Chicken Livers, Filet Mignon, and Fried Bologna), and 1 dessert (Fried Hostess Twinkies).  Menu B consists of 2 appetizers (Tuna Tataki and Anchovy-Wrapped Olives), 3 main entrees (Tuna Casserole, Lobster, and Fried Tofu with Green Onions) and 1 dessert (Jello Pudding Cups).  You are asked to pick one menu and live off of it for a year.  You would evaluate each menu, consider the options, and pick the menu that would be easiest to live with for 365 days.   An outside observer would be reluctant to criticize your choice, and in a sense, it would be silly to call you an idiot for choosing one over the other: they both have their benefits and detriments.

Choosing between political candidates and parties is much akin to the above exercise. Parties present voters with a list of choices: Party A might list climate change as a priority, Party B might elevate fiscal soundness. Each party has their defects: Party A might encourage state intrusion in personal choices, e.g. tobacco use, and Party B might be more bellicose.  The two lists are a mixed bag.  To recognize this is to recognize that attempts to demonize or dismiss the other side as intellectually backwards are wrong-headed and dare I say, morally bankrupt.

The disanalogy is this: one can present evidence why one policy choice might be better than another, whereas it's difficult to argue that Fried Bologna is less bad than Tuna Casserole.  But wouldn't it be better to discuss the reasons themselves, than the character of the person making the choice?