Joe, excellent article.

As I often do, I read it through the eyes of a psychologist and imagined the different motivations. That made a big difference for me. But none of which conflicts with your equations of altruism with political positions - its more of a nuance or added layer.  It just the applied understanding that different people can use and experience moral principles in different ways - and with different levels of honesty or dishonesty.

For example, I was dividing the liberals into different groups according to their deepest motivations and their level of honesty. There are a great many liberals (or progressives as I prefer to call them) who would fit your descriptions perfectly.  

But there are others, a tiny percent, who really only use the altruistic goals as a cover to gain control, and want to use that control out of an angry, bitter, hostile sense of life. It is as if they have projected all their dissatisfactions and hurts and fears on others and out of a drive to get even, or to fix things, they need that control over others.

And there are those whose sense of life isn't as drastically warped, but none-the-less are using the altruistic goals as Trojan Horses to gain control because they believe in an elite government and have a deep distrust of individualism. Their sense of life is more one where fear is assuaged by driving towards the elimination of individualism and having a central control over all things - that is their utopia in a sense that they somehow rationalize it to be where they will feel the ultimate sense of safety and serenity.  In otherwords, they have chosen, or been attracted to those altruistic positions and explanations because they will further the end of establishing the control by elites utopia they seek.

The majority of the progressives however probably fit your descriptions. They see altruism as best expressed with collective controls not just because of any fear of individualism, as such, but that it should, in their minds, take second place to the benefit of society.  So, it isn't as much a worship of sacrifice, as such, or a strong drive to against the individual.  But rather it is just making the 'necessary' compromises where individualism gives way to provide a benefit to the whole. This last group are those who have bought into the university memes that have become popular. I believe that most or at least many of those responsible for the creation and teaching of the memes are in the first two categories and the majority of their students have simply become useful idiots - marching for a cause they think is right.

With the conservatives it is a bit more complex. I see those who express similar levels of dishonesty in wanting to impliment religious views through political means. Again, I'm not sure it is altruism as a base motivation.  I think it is more the psychological side-effect of basing their sense of moral worth in adopting the church's views on those things that are to be taken as evil. To be good they have to be almost militantly opposed to homosexuality or sex for fun, or pretty much anything having to do with sex.  I see much of Christianity as a kind of moral blackmail - you adopt our views and become warriors fighting our enemies, or you will be deemed evil, you will lose any sense of rightness and moral worth.  I don't think it is always that simple threat of eternal damnation and an eternity in Hell that closes the deal.  I think it is the deep need all humans have to feel morally worthy and not recognizing that a real sense of moral worth doesn't come from the church, or from the religion.

The old school gun-powder patriot type of conservatives have a similar psychology but instead of scripture being the background for a sense of moral rightness, it is the set of memes that constitute their view of American Exceptionalism and military action as the way to stand for their values. It is also a paternalistic - an righteously angry father-view of moral expression. Again, it has the appearance of getting and holding a sense of moral rightness that they think comes from commitment to a set of beliefs.  And that which is right must be adopted and enforced. The strong law and order stance is often colored not so much as the objective set of laws that provide liberty as it is the tool to go after those who would dissent.  Dissention endangers the subconscious view that only by adoption of this or that set of beliefs can things be made right.  Competing views must be attacked and forced out of existence to protect the one good set of views.  And so, like the progressives who have a bitter, angry sense of life, they are matched in a way by the conservatives who have a sense that their world can only be made right by initiating force to achieve a degree of conformity. And, the particular moral statements and altruistic language is, from the motivational point of view, are just linguistic camouflage.

But most of the conservatives would fit your description quite well. They see altruistic ends as better served via adoption of their political views. They are the unwitting carriers of their own downfall - not realizing that their acceptance of altruistic ends will undercut the free enterprise and liberty and pave the way for those compromises that move towards collectivism. I'm not sure what percentage of conservatives would characterize altruism as impractical, but rather that they feel that some kind of balance is needed between altruistic ends and liberty - they don't see them as contradictory as much as just in conflict. And that means they need to be making compromises - and where and how much will depend upon the location of the Overton Window, the sentiments of the moment, and the subject at hand. But always compromising towards less liberty - trapped by their acceptance of altruistic ends.

And with a highly factional, divisive political environment you see that emotions and the sense of my tribe versus your tribe takes over and primitive fight or flight emotions start to drive the debates and in that arena, altruistic statements, and ad hominen sentiments become the clubs that are handy, and the real motive becomes "I won't let them win!"

A comparison of the relationship of progressive and conservative political beliefs to underlying altruistic beliefs implies that the ideas are to be measured by reason - which we all agree is what should be - but when people hold ideas not as their best understanding of reality at that moment, and with the understanding they are always subject to reason, but instead as useful clubs or camouflage or as otherwise meaningless symbols that feel most like their current emotions - regardless of reason - then we have to look at the motives as well.  And it is why honesty, honesty with ones self in how they hold and express ideas, and honesty with others in the nature of their arguments, becomes important.  Honest differences of opinion can be resolved by people of good will.  Not always, but always possible.  Without the honesty - not so much.