I've always wondered about this question, and the answer is, of course, that it is a personal choice. Some writers choose to make direct political statements. Others prefer to write novels or weave elaborate allegories - this has been so ever since Plato told his 'Allegory of the Cave' in which a group of people live chained to a wall of a cave, facing a blank wall.
They watch the shadows projected on the wall, shadows of things passing in front of a fire behind them. They can describe these shadows, but it does not alter the fact that these are only shadows, and are the closest that these people can get to viewing reality. Indeed - it is their reality - and unless someone removes their chains and allows them to turn around, there is very little chance that these people will change their view of the world.
Over 2300 years have passed since Plato told this story, and still, it is as poignant today as it was back then. I am not clever enough to think of such elaborate allegories - although of course, I wish I were.
So I am trying to find my middle way, between expressing political opinions which are my version of reality - and perhaps losing precious time in arguments with people who think differently and see reality in a different way.
I have no desire to argue with anyone, as I am convinced that Plato got it right, and we all just see shadows - our own versions of reality.
Perhaps the answer is in going deep within, and finding where we stand on different matters. Once we find that true voice within, a voice which we don't always make the time and the required silence in which we can hear it - perhaps then the clever allegories, and some interesting insights, will come.