So there are two models I can have of politicians who advocate policies different from mine. The first is that we have different terminal goals--even though our model of the world is quite similar, in the sense that we agree about which policies would create which outcomes, we differ on which outcomes we prefer to create. The second is that we have different beliefs--for example, you think raising the minimum wage would be on net beneficial for the working class, whereas I think it's likely to increase unemployment.

These two models suggest different strategies for people who have political disagreements. The first model suggests all-out war: take down the people who have different values from you at any cost through rhetoric, dirty tactics, etc. The second model suggests trying to improve your rationality and their rationality so your beliefs are less stubborn, you can see the world more accurately, and you can better achieve your collective values.

I also think that in practice many theoretically-instrumental goals are, in fact, terminal.

I don't think this is the right model for something like an incorrect belief in nuclear power being bad. I think it's more accurate to say that someone has a visceral disgust for nuclear power, or all their friends think nuclear power is bad, or whatever. Labeling incorrect beliefs as terminal goals basically makes them in to black boxes where investigating how the incorrect belief formed is a waste of time. The advantage of investigating how the incorrect belief formed is that we can learn how to prevent incorrect beliefs from forming in ourselves and others. That's basically the project of this site.