Politicians don't like us to think too much. Ideally they'd have us sitting in the background nodding appreciatively and telling them they are awesome.
If they are going to have to ask us a question they like to keep it very simple. "Vote for me or for him."
But even that is a bit risky because if you were to be considering that question you'd look at the individuals involved. Such close scrutiny would require best behaviour, well thought out strategy and upstanding morals. That is way, way too much to expect, and, well, minimizes their control.
So whenever at all possible our esteemed leadership prefers to ask us to pick a colour. It used to be blue or yellow. Then (from a historical point of view, thankfully) we got a choice of red chucked in. But now, we're almost spoilt for choice, we've got blue and white, green, pink ...
What they want is for us to identify with one of the colours offered and then stick to it. No need to think about why or what the consequences might be. It is much preferred if we are all blindly subservient to our chosen colour.
And if you wish an argument in extremis for why this is a dreadful idea, look at the United States. Red or blue are the only choices. Both run by the social 'elite', by the uber wealthy. And now with tribalism so entrenched that it doesn't matter what lies your side might spin, or the depths to which they will sink, they will be supported by those that sport the same colour.
It is not even that they are 'forgiving the sins' because it has gone beyond that. It is now 'they can't have done any wrong because their tie is red/blue'. That is fanaticism.
Politicians don't really do as much as they lead us to believe. A great deal of what they do would be done by whomever is in power. If they were really looking out for the best for us, looking for the optimum solution, all of what they do would be the same. What they are determined to do is to set up as much control for themselves as they can. Striving for their share of the top of Maslow's triangle, and it does not matter to them who gets trampled on the way there.
We must continually question the motivation on both sides of any argument and then insist on debate, discussion, compromise and consensus.