Yes, for all practical purposes, given an historical overview of human interactions to date, this is an entirely reasonable frame of mind.
Or so it seems to me. Here and now.
But:
As I interpret it, this “power to enforce” a particular political agenda is best rooted in “democracy and the rule of law” — in moderation, negotiation and compromise.
As opposed to “might makes right” or “right makes might”.
Now, what some folks do is to argue that Nietzsche had it right. Philosopher kings of the liberal “humanistic” school [like religious leaders] are ruled out because basically they become tools of the weak to emasculate the strong. Instead, the ubermen, who are more in sync with the one true understanding of human nature, not only prevail over the weak but ought to prevail over the weak.
And then there are the usual assumptions attached here regarding gender roles, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.
They key component intertwining them all however is one or another rendition of this:
1] there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
2] this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
3] “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, Humanism, ideology, nature
I call them objectivists. And, from my frame of mind, what makes them embrace that frame of mind is in turn embedded in one or another psychological rendition of this:
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
Again, I think that this is an entirely reasonable way in which to think about human life and death. My point is only that there are others able to construct conflicting narratives that, given a different set of assumptions, are also reasonable. And that my frame of mind then revolves around the extent to which they argue in turn that their own narrative is [necessarily] most in sync with God and/or Reason and/or Nature.
In other words, that you are either “one of us” in sharing it, or you are wrong.
Where things get tricky here however is that there are any number of components embedded in human interactions that seem entirely objective in nature. Mathematics, the laws of physics, the empirical world around us, the logical rules of language.
In fact things can become rather “spooky” when you consider that the “is/ought” world may well in turn be entirely objective. But only because human moral narratives themselves are embodied in an illusion of autonomy in a wholly determined world.