To bounce off this a bit, what I wish I'd made clearer in my own recent such post is "All art is political" is a motte for not just what OP said, but "The real-world political impact of any given piece (or even genre) can be discretely and objectively measured" and "'holding creators accountable' is a reliable, effective way to boost the positive impacts and lessen the negative ones", which are also baked into the whole ideology and which are even more symbolic-magic than "All art is made with political intent."
Because in practical terms, the fights are rarely like "We need to be more open to the idea in general that works of art intersect with ideas about economics and labor and sex and race and etc." That's the baileyest bailey there ever was. Like, I don't know how anyone, even the people who have spent the last 15 years throwing darts at a picture of Zoe Quinn, could honestly go "no they don't, not ever, you're making that up" with a straight face. People who act like that's the ground that needs defending are being too easy on themselves. The battleground is much more like "This specific work is causing measurable harm for these specific reasons, and if you care about harm, it's your moral responsibility to refuse to engage with it and condemn everyone who does. My moral authority (and factual accuracy) is not to be questioned, of course." And then when people rightly call that out as bullshit, the retreat looks like "But don't you understand that All Art Is Political?"
That's the song and dance that has, over the years, made me dismiss anyone who uses the stock phrase without at least gesturing at its limits.