Being in the middle doesn’t mean someone is necessarily blasé or accepting of all issues. It just means they aren’t overly committed to one side or the other, especially emotionally.
One measure of intellect is able to see issues through the eyes of both parties in debate. It is often necessary for supervisors to have this ability, to fairly judge outcomes. It doesn’t mean they don’t still internally believe that one party is typically, if not almost always, more correct than the other. They’re just not afraid to address that party in the times they believe they are wrong, as it is not an emotional judgement, it is a logical one, that may unfortunately hurt that person emotionally.
I consider myself a very far right conservative in my principles. I see very little on the left that I agree with. But, I am not so emotionally committed to the right, that I march in complete lockstep with them all the time, and give them every benefit of the doubt. When they screw up, I am very quick to criticize them. And there are some (very rare) times I actually agree with the left, which then puts me more in the center of the scale than what my true principles are.
But it’s about being intellectually honest, and not emotionally over-committed to the right, or suffering from unconditional love of political figures, that we have historically seen on the left but are starting to see more of now on the right. Hope that all makes sense, but feel free to pick it apart if you don’t think it did.