Perhaps a distinction between neutrality and impartiality is in order. Every form of government, every piece of legislation, is based, unavoidably, on a certain view of man and his place in the social order. By definition, laws and policies assert that things are to be done one way rather than another, or perhaps not done at all. But to answer the question why we should have a particular policy (or not), one would at some point have to explain the good promoted or the evil avoided. I’ve never heard a policy justified with the argument, “Well, it’s different, anyway.”

This is the sense in which neutrality is a myth. But I don’t think this makes politics into a power struggle, because laws should be impartial, that is, not favoring any interest or faction over the common good. I’m not saying, of course, that everyone will agree on what the common good is, but that doesn’t mean there is no common good that reason can discover. In any case, some notion of the common good will be adopted by default. Indeed, you can only define “interest” and “faction” with respect to some idea of the common good. Are families an “interest”, a lifestyle choice seeking a tax break, or are they part of the common good?

Prudence is always a limiting factor. Not every good must be pursued or every evil avoided. It’s likely, too, that different pieces of legislation and different policies within (especially) a democratic regime will be based on different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, understandings of the human person. But this is why we have free government: to sort these things out.