Bookchin says yo

You claimed to have an inward-out moral hierarchy but the rest of you comment demonstrated the opposite. "we’re all in this together.", "better off and happier poor in a good society than on top in a bad one", "the way humanity has organized itself sucks. We could do so much better". These are all statements that imply you would take actions that are objectively worse for you + your immediate community if it benefited the broader society. People that feel that way tend to be left leaning.

Here's the thing... These sentiments are objectively true. I know these things because of my education, just the same as I know "opposites attract" does not stand up to empirical analysis. We are actually all in this together, and living poor in a society that takes care of the poor is does actually lead to higher happiness than living rich in an inequal one

You talk about actions that are worse for me - I'm not so sure I'd do something that's actually worse for me. I'm not that selfless

What I will do is take actions that prioritize the long term over instant gratification, or give up something direct for the sake of something less direct or even something ephemeral

Some of that is that I have a lot of empathy, being around someone suffering or someone full of hatred feels bad. But my political positions all come from sociological analysis - growing up my positions were closer to anarcho-capitalists because I love freedom, and now I'm very left leaning because I learned

I spend a lot of time around conservative people, and their values aren't very different. They want what we all want - they want life to be affordable, they want a future for the children, they want to live in a thriving world.

The difference is they don't understand how things can be better. They don't understand that they're voting against their own interests. They don't understand that their perceived enemies are just like them, people who just want to live a good life

They see the state of the world, and they believe others are out to get them. They think everyone has bad intentions, and so they must "play the game" and get theirs before someone else does it first

And they're often not actually bad people, they can be as generous as anyone and sometimes have a strong will to help others, so long as they feel it's not their perceived enemies

They choose short term benefits and to disadvantage others, because fundamentally they don't understand the world and the nature of others.

It all boils down to ignorance, often an ignorance they will fight to maintain, but it's ignorance.

And education challenges that belief. If they make it through higher education without changing their beliefs, they either do it through an extreme pessimistic view towards the motivations of others (the knowing liers happy to "get theirs" like "anyone would"), or they come out ranting and raving about liberals in academia did their best to poison their minds

But mostly, they fail or come out with different views because of their new understandings. People say reality has a leftist bent, but it's more that conservative views require a warped view of reality

No, because not everyone is so well known for having formalized a specific worldview that the worldview itself is named after them.

Do Keynesian economists worship Keynes? Do people who deeply believe that Newtonian physics is vital for understanding reality at the macro scale practice idolatry?

You are either disturbingly naive or a troll. Terms don't magically become religious just because they incorporate the name of a foundational figure in them.