In other words, you are celebrating the works of an avowed communist. Why am I not surprised.
The key phrase is "relative accomplishments." For a smart guy, you come up with some bizarre conclusions. I point out that Masters is a faint echo of Sandburg. That does not suppose that I consider Sandburg as anything more or less than what he was. Masters was an acquittance and contemporary of Sandburg. Sandburg writes poetry to some acclaim in 1914; Masters follows with his poetry of death in 1915. Sandburg publishes two well-received volumes on Lincoln in 1926; Masters publishes his controversial hit piece on Lincoln in 1931. Sandburg publishes four more volumes on Lincoln in 1940 and wins the Pulitzer Prize; Masters holes up in an NYC apartment. If Masters hadn't died in 1950, Sandburg's next Pulitzer in 1951 would have probably killed him anyway.
By making to comparison of Masters to Sandburg like that of Solieri to Mozart, I point out their respective levels of accomplishment and impact on the world. It doesn't mean I like classical music.