We want to know the whole truth, but all we can get is partial
truth.
In the court, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. But everyone understands that this is
supposed to be only the relevant whole truth, and we
rarely get even that.
I suspect that, at times, our desire for the whole truth leads
us to assume that the truth we already know is the whole truth;
and this leads us into serious new problems.
Details
An old saying: theology is true in what it affirms, and false
in what it denies.
The same is true for politics. And probably for most other
areas of life.
On the whole, we embrace a position because it says something
good and important; and we put up with it in the areas where it
is uncoimfortable. These often seem to be the consequences of the
original position - the 'therefore's.
The example of this I have been using for years is in the
theological realm of Calvinism. The Calvinist, to paraphrase
horribly, says, "God is sovereign, therefore man is not free."
The other side responds with "Man is free, therefore God is not
sovereign."
We can see the same thing happening in politics. The
Conservative says, "The talented and hard-working must be free to
enjoy the fruit of their labour, therefore we must reduce the
burden of taxes." The Socialist says, "The weak and poor need to
be cared for, therefore we must protect them from the strong and
powerful."
In all these cases, the starting point is fine, but what is
seen to follow from the starting point is a real problem.
In each case, what you believe is true, but it is not the whole
truth. The whole truth is much larger, stranger and more difficult
than the neat, packaged thing we find comfortable to work with.