The politics of writing theory

I have been thinking lately - mainly because I am supposed to think about something else - about the implications and moral obligations of writing for mid-level education.

On the one hand, I have a strong ideal that people should be allowed to figure "the truth" out for themselves. Mainly because I am a genX child of the postmodern, and have no clue what "the truth" might be if it - contrary to my intuitions - should exist out there, somewhere... (Probably on a beach sipping a drink with pieces of exotic fruit and an umbrella in it, because it seems to have taken a good long vacation lately...)

On the other hand, I believe that people have no chance in hell of figuring out what is going on by themselves, and If they are not given a bit of help adopting a critical perspective, they will probably end up buying the simplest and cheapest answers, mainlly peddled by right-wing populists.

Therefore, I am caught in a dilemma (apart from the fact that this is plainly an excuse from writing the paper, that I am supposed to be working on...): An article should strive to be neutral and give a varied view of the field, but on the other hand, it seems to me, that it is the duty of every published writer or artist to join in the political debate, and at least try to give people tools to shrug off populist hegemony... or an additional angle, at least.
But... doing that, I might just enter the discourse of pointless panicked leftist dribble going on in the more unfortunate varieties of critical theory, or, worse still, take part in the construction of futher one-sided political imperatives and academeese nonsense that no-one outside of the walls can benefit from.

And in all of that, the rules of "good objective science" seems to be held at knife-point by political correctness, the will to do good and publishers...

That stuff can really make your head spin.