Morrissey tends to choose his interviewers from his devotees, often it's his nephew.
The Smiths were a left wing band - played anti-racism and anti-apartheid gigs. They were also the sum of four people's work and the 80's Morrissey was very different to the modern one. So I think it's possible to make the distinction between them and him.
His solo career has descended into self-parody with a rock-a-billy backing band. So I don't think you are missing much. To be honest there's more to dislike about the middle-aged Moz than his Brexity views he comes across as whiny and manipulative.
But can you separate the art from the artist? Generally, we probably should approach a work on it's own merits, An actor who's a shit doesn't wreck our enjoyment of the whole film but realistically is that possible? Art is inspired by the world and influenced by it. We approach it with a knowledge of the world and other works in the same field.
With a picture of a puppy painted by a perv or a pastoral instrumental by a fascist I guess it's possible to set aside the views of the artist. Also we can read Kipling and disagree with some of his racial attitudes in his work but recoginise that's the prevailing mood of the time but it might still spoil the work for his. It is hard for an author to keep his views out of the narrative - certainly Mozza couldn't, you should read his novel - it's hilariously bad.
With Pop Singers though there's an added dimension. Their persona and ideas are entirely wrapped up it how they present themselves. It's difficult to ignore Gary Glitter's history when you see him stomping around in front of children asking "Do you want to be in my gang?".
It's probably easy to ignore the modern Morrissey because as he's disappeared up his own arse so has the quality of his music.