The movement towards free and open source software was created in no small part do to activists with a very strong ideology. Open source would not exist to the same extent without the ideology espoused by the FSF. The problem is that abandoning a key tenant of the free software movement, neutrality towards different uses (part of freedom 0 of the free software definition), does far more harm than good and contravenes FLOSS ideology.
They did have a strong ideology and they worked towards building the world they wished to see. Not by breaking existing things to virtue signal their support for "the current thing"
This is true, and an argument that keeps getting repeated, but isn't the same issue. The politics of open source software are about software. How it's made and how it's used.
The modern push is about injecting outside ideology into software (and everywhere else). Bringing geo, gender, and racial politics into software is a whole lot different than software politics in software.