Entry 2458, on 2026-09-30 at 17:43:18 (Rating 2, Politics)
I recently noticed a post on X which I think has some relevance in the current time. It said this: "MYTH If you don't fit neatly into one party, you don't have real political values. FACT Most people hold a mix of views across different issues that don't align perfectly with any single party platform. That doesn't mean your values are unclear, it means they're your own."
I mean, this seems so obvious that I barely know what I need to even talk about it, but I think there is a second quote which should also be considered: "MYTH Political parties have fixed values and philosophies. FACT Parties' policies and ideology change over time and it is dangerous to align with one party assuming its ideas will stay fixed."
Finally people should be aware that their own political preferences also change over time. Often this results in a more conservative or right-oriented view as the person gets older. Whether this is because the person is gaining wisdom or simply becoming less amenable to change is, of course, debatable.
Looking back through my blog, which is a good way to keep track of my thoughts over time, I can see that I have changed my views massively. For example, in 2014 I wrote a blog post titled "The Libertarian Dream" which is a fictional account of how I thought the inhabitant of a new society based around pure libertarianism might live and think. It's actually incredibly bitter and twisted. I like it! But I now more or less identify as a libertarian, so clearly something has changed.
Here are some explanations of how I might like that post while (sort of) converting to the ideology it denigrates...
First, maybe that post is based on the worst possible implementation of libertarianism, and there are far more positive ways it might affect the world. Maybe I have been guilty of falling into the trap that I criticise my opponents for: the straw man argument!
Second, maybe the alternative is even worse because the counterfactual (broadly speaking, socialism) might have resulted in an even worse life for the heroine of that story. It's easy to criticise one political philosophy, but unless you have a better one your criticism loses some of its power.
Third, maybe I just like writing biting satire, even when it is against a view I might share. Fictional stories don't have to be based on reality, they might just be there for entertainment value, although this one had a clear political message.
Fourth, I said "sort of" above because I don't necessarily like tags like "libertarian". As I said in a post titled "No More -isms" from 2018, tags like that tend to be oversimplifications of what most people's true attitudes are. I prefer a mix of policies from every perspective, although I tend towards smaller government and greater individual freedom, which is why I use the tag libertarian as a rough approximation of my position.
Fifth, maybe it shows a very healthy attitude to be able to criticise the political view you most identify with. Even today I make comments criticising libertarian politics when I think it gets things wrong. Of course, I do tend to criticise other political views even more. Skepticism is good, although with me it occasionally lapses into cynicism!
Finally, unless you can look back and recognise that your opinions have changed then in what way are you growing intellectually? I mean, it seems to me that a person who never changes their views, like the friend I sometimes mention who always votes Labour, is not growing in any meaningful way.
Did they really get it right first time, so that their philosophy hasn't changed? Did the party they vote for never change? Is there not a better option which fits a greater proportion of their beliefs that they might not have considered before? I'm sorry, but anyone who has always voted for the same party and always will seems like a thoughtless, irrational ideologue, rather than a thoughtful and careful voter.
Some people criticise others when they change their political views, but it can just as often be a sign of more careful thought and intellectual progress, or even recognition that the party they previously supported has changed. Changing you mind politically isn't a weakness, it is a strength!
Comment 1 (9603) by Jim on 2026-10-03 at 12:23:05:
Parties change? YES.
National today evidences little of what it stood when Sid Holland crafted his party principles. It's been losing direction since the 90's - and with his failure to address the society-shredding spectre of maorification, Luxon is finishing it off.
Comment 2 (9604) by OJB on 2026-10-04 at 10:55:58:
Yes, I agree about National. I guess they are trying to compete in the center, and leave the rest to Act and NZF, but I think they go too far. Of course, the best example of ideological change was the 1984 Labour government. That was overall good, so it goes both ways,
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a comment below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. Note that your IP address will be stored and you will be blocked if you misuse this system. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
I do podcasts too! You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2026-09-12 Nice Knowing You: So we are all kind of doomed, and there really isn't much we can do about it. Or subscribe to my podcast RSS feed, on my RSS Feeds page.
Latest Site News and Notifications (Desktop): You are currently viewing OJB's web site, version 2.4 which has some major changes, and possibly errors! Please report any problems to ojb@mac.com.
BLOG PAGE