If both sides of the divide describe their political champion as such and claim their opponent lacks these qualities, where does that leave the discussion?

Others might suggest that both are virtuous and attempt to synthesize their platforms. They're not entirely incompatible. Cynics might suggest that they both lack these qualities, or that all politicians are inherently corrupt.

No, I don't think this assertion is a meaningful start to a discussion. It reads as a signal of tribal loyalty, nothing more.