It's hard enough to trust any research than can simply be turned around and used as a political weapon. Research that supports a blanket tarring of some group's political enemies is very suspect.
I don't see it as a positive thing when science gets suppressed because it's conclusions are considered politically incorrect or unfortunate -- either by the left or the right.
We should have a heightened watchfulness for political bias from the researchers in these cases, sure, but usually it's not the researchers who are misinterpreting or over-interpreting or drawing heavily political conclusions from their work.
There's no suppression. Just bullshit addition.
Ultimately when politically sensitive research is allowed to happen, independently confirmed (or disconfirmed), and slowly digested in a mature fashion on all sides of the political spectrum (no "ha I told you so!" and systematic over-interpretation, no knee-jerk "the only explanation is political bias and the research must stop"), society surely stands to benefit from a more realistic and nuanced worldview in which to decide on policy. Not easy to achieve of course, but it makes me sad when people fail at the first hurdle.
When people talk about some politicians being psychopaths they are i: careful to limit it to "some", not "all" or "most" and ii: not limiting it to some particular party. It's as possible for someone in $PARTY_X to be psychopathic as someone in $PARTY_Y.