Is ideological consistency important?

[Dejanic]

Throughout my time on nationstates and on other political forums, I've come across individuals from a wide array of political backgrounds. I've also noticed that their are many people who's personal views have been all across the political spectrum, going from a Fascist, to a Communist, to a Libertarian, to a Conservative, to a Social Democrat all in under a year.

The question is, do people who have a tendency to radically change their political beliefs often have much legitimacy in political discussion? Should we take such people seriously at all, especially when the views they are currently espousing will probably be completely different in 3 months? Is someone who's ideologically consistent a more legitimate figure in politics than someone who switches around all the time.

Personally, I of course understand that it's fair that as someone politically matures their views will change from time to time, but I do think if someone has radically changed their ideologies to such an extent that they've been everything from far-right, to far-left, to the political centre in a short period, then they probably need to do more research into an ideology before they proclaim themselves a member of it. That's not to say I don't think someone can legitimately change their ideology, I just think that it can go to such an extreme level that you wonder if the person even researched what they proclaim to believe in.

So nationstates members, what are your opinions? And to make this fun, what has been your ideological journey throughout the years.

Personally, I became politically aware at the age of 13/14, I pretty much was an odd hybrid of right wing beliefs until the age of 16, I then ended up researching Marx and I became a Communist, I've now been a Communist of some sorts for about 2 and a half years.

[Greater-London]

Not really no, although I think if you flit between ideological positions to quickly then your probably indecisive, easily convinced or never truly believed in what you professed you did.

I think its good to be open minded and be able to change your opinions, challenging yourself will further understanding of your own beliefs and this is a good thing.

I first became interested in politics when I was 13/14 although my opinions where really just repeating those of my wise (but wrong) High Tory father.

At sixth form through studying politics I migrated to the soft left and considered myself to be a social democrat from about 15 to mid way through my first year at university (18).

I became disinterested in left wing politics the more I became involved in it; the people I spoke to where pretty narrow minded and unable to compromise their beliefs in anyway. They also seemed to be living under the impression that the last 30 years hand't happened and that the left was far more influential than it was.

I now describe myself as a classical liberal with quite a lot of social liberal tendencies (now pushing 21). I've found a compromise of sorts between where I stood in my early and later teens. I'm a progressive who was mugged by reality.

[Neu Leonstein]

I think the point of a forum like this is precisely that it allows people's views to be challenged, really be taken apart and then changed if needed. I mean, I started out as some sort of commie back in 04 or whenever I joined, moved towards social democracy then kept going all the way to objectivism, and now I'm on some kind of pragmatic classical liberalism if I had to describe it.

Mostly, those moves were the result of NSG arguments I had with people, which forced me to go deep into the justifications, implications and the empirical evidence for my views. If more people put their own ideologies to the test like that, the world would be a better place. So I don't see how refusing to be convinced by stuff is a good thing, and that's what I read the OP to mean.

[Murkwood]

No, as long as you say what you truly believe.

[Diopolis]

Well, people who change their beliefs very rapidly in the way you described I would have a hard time taking seriously, but it would have to be really extreme to be that big a deal.
My idealogical journey: I became politically aware around twelve, and was almost immediately a tea partier. My position gradually became a bit more nuanced, but the essentials of ron paul type libertarianism were there and stayed there. In my early teens I migrated towards more social rather than economic conservatism and began looking into monarchism around 15, which is also when I made the jump to supporting greater religious influence on government. I've been a reactionary monarchist ever since, although my position has varied from hobbesian to theocrato-monarchist to a combination of the two.

[Ashmoria]

no ideological consistency is not important.

RECOGNIZING your ideological inconsistency is very important. how else can you come to understand your role in the real world instead of being some kind of robot of some long dead political philosopher?

[The Serbian Empire]

I believe it isn't important unless one is running for office and a party of a political party. My views have swung wildly from communist to reactionary economic conservative to a libertarian. I see the economic left as ineffective and not understanding human nature's faults. The social conservatives? I found their positions on social matters to be a bit too anti-capitalist when it comes to drugs. I'd rather see an open market of marijuana than to see a black market.

[Greater-London]

. I've been a reactionary monarchist ever since, although my position has varied from hobbesian to theocrato-monarchist to a combination of the two.

I've always been intrigued by American monarchists; many Monarchists see the Monarchy as part of an expression of cultural heritage but that runs in contrast with the Whig principles of the America's republic.

Heres a question, If you were offered Elizabeth II as head of state in place of the president and a move toward a Parliamentary system of government would you take it?

[Diopolis]

. I've been a reactionary monarchist ever since, although my position has varied from hobbesian to theocrato-monarchist to a combination of the two.

I've always been intrigued by American monarchists; many Monarchists see the Monarchy as part of an expression of cultural heritage but that runs in contrast with the Whig principles of the America's republic.

Heres a question, If you were offered Elizabeth II as head of state in place of the president and a move toward a Parliamentary system of government would you take it?

Yes.

[Arumdaum]

I've always been intrigued by American monarchists; many Monarchists see the Monarchy as part of an expression of cultural heritage but that runs in contrast with the Whig principles of the America's republic.

Heres a question, If you were offered Elizabeth II as head of state in place of the president and a move toward a Parliamentary system of government would you take it?

Yes.

lol

what about akihito

[Arumdaum]

I agree that if someone is rather quick to change their views, then they probably don't really know much about what they advocate. I think that people will definitely see someone who is ideologically consistent and doesn't change their views every other week or month with more legitimacy than someone who does.

I personally find it difficult to take people who change their views constantly very seriously. When a person does so, it makes me think that they don't really know what they're talking about, and are basing their position off of only a very limited amount of information. Either that or they think that having that position is cool.

I first became interested in politics during the 2008 election (I was 11 lol), but I didn't really know anything about it. That next year we had a project on what we'd do if we were an Egyptian pharaoh, and looking back on it, I put down a bunch of crazy right-wing things which treated criminals as if they were subhuman.

I became a communist around January 2009, I think. I'm not sure. I definitely called myself one by February of that year. It might have been December of 2008. However, I didn't really know what communism was, and I was just one of those people who thought that the Soviet Union was super cool without knowing anything about it. I was also really into Russian culture at the time.

I've called myself a communist for over five years now, but still my views have changed a significant amount. I think for much of that time I was really just one of those typical Western liberals who thought the only things which mattered were universal healthcare, LGBT rights, drug legalization, and so on. One of those people afraid of China's rise and the threat to Western dominance, parroting how the collapse of a Chinese bubble economy was going to wreck the nation forever, who subtly hinted that the world outside of the West was not as civilized as the world within it.

However, as I've been learning more about the world, and learn about issues which I previously did not know much about, I find that I've been heading further and further to the left, and focusing more on other issues, such as sexism and racism. I think I've been focusing more on racism as that is something which directly affects me, as a member of a disadvantaged minority in both the United States and the world (although I guess I benefit from Hallyu and the girls that get Korean boy fetishes from that, but then again I have a hard time standing that).

I've noticed that people think what affects them directly is more of a problem in the world than things which don't (which seems actually pretty obvious), especially when I was discussing with a friend on what communism would solve. I said how it would definitely serve to lessen both racism and sexism. I was thinking racism in particular as certain races wouldn't be associated with crime, poverty, and subservience, nor be seen as lesser than other races which do better financially. My friend, who happened to be white and female, argued that it would be better solve sexism, and it was rather apparent that racism wasn't something she thought much about.

I think that the evolution of my IC nation Arumdaum is in a way indicative of my own ideological journey. It's only apparent, though, once you ignore the policies of my nation (which I've shifted rightward) but rather notice how my nation is composed.

Arumdaum was previously a very multicultural nation in which no ethnic group held a majority. Everyone, though, spoke English, wore Western clothing, did drugs which are cool in the teenage community in the United States, and listened to Western music. The cuisine was Indian, Thai, Mexican, vegan, or fusion, which happen to be what stereotypical white liberals in the US like (also my actual favorite foods). I was rather fine being a region that was created for (white) nations of another region to create East Asian colonies in. The ruling party, although called the Communist Party, didn't really advocate anything communist, and was in reality just another one of those parties which advocated a moderate capitalism.

Of course, Arumdaum is now completely different. I've created an alternate scenario in the region which I'm in in which East Asia, rather than Europe, industrializes first, resulting in East Asian privilege rather than white privilege. Of course, things don't work out perfectly since people automatically assume European dominance (and continuously ask for it), new nations in the European region keep asking me or other nations in my region if they can have a Hong Kong, and you don't really know what East Asian music and clothing would be like if they evolved in an industrial society (without there being any other industrialized societies).

[Quintium]

The question is, do people who have a tendency to radically change their political beliefs often have much legitimacy in political discussion? Should we take such people seriously at all, especially when the views they are currently espousing will probably be completely different in 3 months? Is someone who's ideologically consistent a more legitimate figure in politics than someone who switches around all the time.

Actually, I'd say that someone who changes his views with moderation and on good grounds is a lot better than a stubborn fool who keeps holding on to his twentieth-century wishful thinking. What's more, I'm more inclined to trust those who place people and nations above ideologies. Those who put ideologies before people and nations are as bad as footballers who keep their eyes on their own feet instead of on the ball. They have bad priorities, so it's likely that they'll stumble over their own feet and fall to the ground.

[Priory Academy USSR]

No. Stubbornness is much worse than inconsistency in terms of ideology. I respect anyone who changes their views as a result of facts and logical arguments against their original position.

[Diopolis]

Yes.

lol

what about akihito

Also yes, although I'm not sure either Japan or the UK wants us.

[Ermarian]

If you're consistently wrong, you're still wrong.

Worse, if consistency is more important than not being wrong, then you're going to have a hard time ever being right. The effect would be similar to a learning disability.

[Threlizdun]

Ideology should be changed to accommodate reality and promote sentient wellbeing. If the ideology is incapable of doing this, then it is not an ideology worth adhering to.

[Liberaxia]

My political positions are consistent with my beliefs. That is all that matters.

[New Aerios]

Everyone changes their views at some point. I went from being incredibly centrist to being rather conservative, then back to slightly right of centre and more liberal, then gradually moved further towards capitalism and libertarianism until I got to the point where I began to identify as an AnCap. It's an entirely natural thing to occur, especially in an incredibly diverse political environment like NationStates.

Far worse, in my opinion, is the person who holds one idea in their mind, and blindly follows it no matter what, while refusing to accept other views or amend their opinion based on evidence or logic, especially when their beliefs are stupid.
*cough*CommiesandFascists*cough*

[Nervium]

I'd say I'm an ardent believer in my ideology, although I like pragmatism.
Seeing that I grew into the person I am today, believing in what I believe, and used to believe, I've travelled quite a way.

And I like scolding people for having different opinions too, but that's not important.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I've gone through the full spectrum of ideologies from bleeding-heart leftie Liberal to gay-bashing darkie-hating National Socialist in my life, until fairly recently deciding that I'm simply done with ideologies, done with someone else deciding for me what's right and wrong rather than using my own observation and judgement.

Doesn't mean, of course, that I wouldn't hold any political views anymore, but I certainly refrain from conforming to any labels now, even if the views expressed under one label happen to coincide with my own.

[Tubbsalot]

The question is, do people who have a tendency to radically change their political beliefs often have much legitimacy in political discussion?

No, but that's not due to their unstable ideology. It's because they usually don't have any good reasons for believing in what they do.

[Othelos]

The question is, do people who have a tendency to radically change their political beliefs often have much legitimacy in political discussion?

Ya because how else are they gonna figure out that their ideology is flawed?

[Nervium]

The question is, do people who have a tendency to radically change their political beliefs often have much legitimacy in political discussion?

Ya because how else are they gonna figure out that their ideology is flawed?

Unless it's not flawed. *nods*

[Blazedtown]

Of course not. All this obsession over ideological purity nonsense is what is strangling the republican party. If you can't compromise or change your mind you'll never achieve anything in politics.

[Sanguinea]

Ideologies are overrated and unrealistically rigid. I'm another one who's been all over the political spectrum, when I first became politically conscious I was captivated by Marxism-Leninism, then National Socialism, Italian Fascism, then I evolved to where I am now as a strange melange of market socialism, syndicalism, authoritarianism, and anti-liberalism. I believe syncreticism in ones views is inevitable as one moves further into their evolution as a person.