(1) Good point, but if the conflict between the parties is aboveboard and earnest, it doesn’t relate to the conflict between unpatriotic factions in the modern US. Especially on the part of one of those factions (I use the term as a nod at the founders, who were entirely against them, which makes them unpatriotic, because they were the original US patriots), immoral and rediculous assertions are pumped into the public discourse to avoid rational conversation and progress for citizens at all costs. Most feuds and wars do involve some bending of the truth or exaggeration due to hurt feelings or dogmatic carryover, but they’re rarely the whole point of the contributions to the discourse. So, in a better and more common situation where both sides are actually Ernest, but still cannot find a way to compromise to benefit everyone, a beautifully articulated outside perspective could move the Ernest opponents to peace.
(2) Agree, but I think it’s there for people to notice. It’s been implicit in our media for a century that if we bring our ways to the little people, we’re doing our part to make the world a better place. Also, this builds nicely towards the opposite realization that comes later, resulting in the no interference core tenant.