Politics is easily one of the most hostile topics to engage in. Also arguably one of the most important topics that we should engage in.
Is it conducive or constructive for moderators to act on their personal opinions in particular by closing questions showing significant effort?
It depends on what you mean by "did not like". The moderators did not like this question on the main site because it was off-topic for that site. It is on-topic here.
Moderators "do not like" questions that are off-topic because the questions asks about (for example) philosophy or history rather than politics. As there are overlaps between StackExchange sites, so questions that are only a somewhat questionable match as opposed to a complete mismatch are supposed to remain where they were asked. The moderators here generally follow that rule.
Moderators "do not like" questions that appear to be asked in bad faith and questions that ask for opinions and do not / cannot have a definitive answer. Those questions are rightfully closed.
Moderators "do not like" questions where it's not clear at all what the question is asking. Moderators (or the community) will close such questions, and perhaps later reopen them if the original poster has clarified the question. Most of those unclear questions however are drive-by questions, questions asked by a newcomer who never comes back.
Finally, regarding questions that are on-topic, are asked in good faith, and are clear about what is being asked, but are about topics that a moderator has strong political feelings: Moderators are not supposed to close or migrate such questions, and they generally do not do so.
Is it condusive or constructive for moderators to act on their personal opinions [..]?
Definitely a yes. Moderators are one of the most trusted members of this community. By electing them, we give them power to moderate the site. We trust that they are doing that in their best judgement and that this is the best way for moderators to actually do their work. They should feel free to use all the actions at their disposal according to their personal opinion. They should only feel accountable to meta, i.e. every moderator decision that is somehow in question by a user can be discussed on meta and consensus amongst the community should be restored. Moderators should respect any consensus that may have been established on meta. If they feel they cannot do that, they should step down from their role and new moderators should be elected.
I think that is a concise and workable model to allow efficient and fair moderation on this network.
P.S.: It is probably a good idea if a moderator who is unsure about a certain action first consults with fellow moderators before taking action.
Politics, like religion, seldom have a [true-fact: Measurable] answer, as it lies in a philsophical domain.
Also; this is a hypothetical about the responsibilities of moderating such discussions; relevant to the goals of the forum.
Whats more, the complexity of the context of some questions may be hard to define.
Answers will inevitably be subjective, and often correct in each of their respective context.
