>
> We have to believe that the description of reality from which are
> positions rise are in some sense truer that those of opposing
> movement, and those holding opposing analysis.
Three quick points:
One, "and I believe this to be true" is a semantic superfluity, but it's basically what we mean when we say that our descriptions of reality are "in some sense truer" than competing descriptions. Of course we, like everyone else, believe (if not with complete certainty) that what we believe is true. That's what it means to believe something.
Two, I don't think a critique of the majority has to be made from a self-consious position of greater expertise. Obviously just as birdwatchers have more knowledge of birds than the average person, your typical leftist (or right-wing glibertarian) *does* have more knowledge of history, economics, &c than the average person, but let's ignore that for a second. I think the only sane stance has to be one of partial knowledge - the recognition that almost everybody knows quite a few things that most other people don't know. From a position of partial knowledge it's a duty to share your perspective but no right to consider it wholly authoritative.
Three, I think the importance of value conflicts dwarfs that of technical knowledge of the world. You basically choose to identify with your loved ones or your nation or your species, and to accept or reject the Enlightenment, in various degrees, and that's it. There's nothing about the objective world that makes left-wing values more true than glibertarian or organic conservative ones; truth isn't a quality of values. Of course you can change people's values through various kinds of emotional appeals, cajoling, and so on.
The thing that distinguishes a moral value from say hunger is that it's a desire that also includes the desire that everybody act as if they have it. That's why self-policing communities arise. I don't think engaging in this kind of social policing is a bad way to fulfill the desire that you and others live according to those principles. It would just be inaccurate and annoying for someone to claim that the policing is sufficient, or that they themselves live perfectly up to the value system (for certain value systems.)