20 / CHRONICLESnpoints out, “a feature which is paradoxical in view of thenideological insistence upon the merely derivative status ofnideas. But then, ideologies are, of all intellectual creations,nthe most riddled with paradox and deception.”nIntensely theoretical, yes, the inner circle of ideologues;nbut employing as their instruments men indifferent ornhostile to intellectual pursuits, those “streamlined men whonthink in slogans and talk in bullets” of Orwell’s Coming UpnFor Air, the terrorists of ideological warfare. Because thenMarxist ideologue admits the existence of no truth but hisnown ideology, the terrorist is absolved of crimes and sinsnthat otherwise might trouble even such a man; and thusnpersons who from an early age felt impulses to destroy, tonburn, to torment, to kill are freed by ideology to indulgenthose appetites from the abyss. One sees the type best,nperhaps, in Stefan Andres’ story “We Are God’s Utopia.”nSince early in the 20th century, a number of importantnnovels have delineated the ideologue-terrorist for us: Conrad’snUnder Western Eyes and The Secret Agent, WyndhamnLewis’ The Revenge for Love, Gironella’s The CypressesnBelieve in God, and, of course, Solzhenitsyn’s fichon.nIdeology, in short, is a political formula that promisesnmankind an earthly paradise; but in cruel fact, whatnideology has created is a series of terrestrial hells. Thenevidence of ideological ruin is all about us today. How thenncan it be that the word “ideology,” and indeed the concept,ntoo, retain great power in much of the world, and someneven in America?nThe answer to that question is given in part by thisnobservation from Raymond Aron: “When the intellectualnfeels no longer attached either to the community or thenreligion of his forebears, he looks to progressive ideology tonfill the vacuum. The main difference between the progressivismnof the disciple of Harold Laski or Bertrand Russellnand the Communism of the disciple of Lenin concerns notnso much the content as the style of the ideologies and thenallegiance they demand.”nIdeology provides sham religion and sham philosophy,ncomforting in its way to those who have lost or never havenknown genuine religious faith, and to those not sufficientlynintelligent to apprehend real philosophy. The fundamentalnreason why we must set our faces against ideology—sonwrote the wise Swiss editor Hans Barth—is that ideology isnopposed to truth: it denies the possibility of truth in politicsnor in anything else, substituting economic motive and classninterest for abiding norms. Ideology even denies humannconsciousness and power of choice. In Barth’s words, “Thendisastrous effect of ideological thinking in its radical form isnnot only to cast doubt on the quality and structure of thenmind that constitute man’s distinguishing characteristic,nbut also to undermine the foundation of his social life.”nIdeology may offer attractions to the bored member ofnwhat Peter and Brigitte Berger call the Knowledge Class,nwho has cut himself off from religion and community, andnwould like to exercise power. Ideology may enchant youngnpeople, wretchedly schooled, who are zealous for anyncause. And ideologues’ promises may win a followingnamong social groups that feel somehow pushed to thenwall—even though such people do not understand much ofnanything about the ideologues’ doctrines. The early compositionnof the Nazi party will suggest the pattern.nnnBy an elaborate propaganda, calculated to destroy faith innexisting institutions and in lawfully constituted authority,nideology thrusts out truth and clear perception of realitynfrom the minds of its victims. Once possessed of power,nideologues silence all rival voices. Why permit dissent innUtopia?nThe preceding description of ideology and its wiles isnconcurred in by much serious published analysis in WesternnEurope, Britain, and the United States—and by thenmany scholars who have escaped from the Soviet Unionnand other lands conquered by Giant Ideology. Is this allegedn”science of ideas,” this substitute for religion, philosophy,nand the politics of the possible, what is desired by thenadvocates of a proclaimed ideology to advance the interestsnof the United States or of the free world?nWhy, presumably the “America needs an ideology”npeople are advocating something milder than undilutednideology. They are not asking for fanaticism. No. But that isnlike expecting a woman to be partially chaste. The greatnadvantage of ideology is the fanaticism it creates, enablingnideologues to sweep away present dominations and powers.nWhat some people really mean when they call for an”democratic ideology” is a formula for a civil religion, annideology of Americanism, or of the Free World. (Doesnanybody suggest an ideology for the United Nations, foundednupon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?) Antrouble with this civil-religion notion is that the largenmajority of Americans think they already have a religion fornthemselves, not got up by some department in Washington.nIf by some subtie process the approved civil religion werendesigned to supplant the congeries of creeds at presentnflourishing—why, such hostility toward belief in the transcendentnis precisely the most ruinous characteristic of thenexisting virulent ideologies.nYet possibly all that is intended by the enthusiasts for thisnproposed new anticommunist ideology is a declaration ofnpolitical principles and economic concepts to be widelynpromulgated, legislatively approved as a guide to publicnpolicy, and taught in public schools. If this is all, then whyninsist upon labeling the things an ideology? (What might benthe name for this new secular creed? Democratism? DemocraticnCapitalism? Sociocapitalism?) An innocent ideologynis as unlikely a contraption as Christian Diabolism; tonattach the sinister tag “ideology” would be like invitingnfriends to a harmless Halloween bonfire, but announcingnthe party as the New Holocaust.nIf this “democratic ideology” should turn out, in practice,nto be nothing more formidable than a national civicsnprogram for public schools, still it would need to benwatched jealously. Cloying praise in every classroom of thenbeauties of democratic capitalism would bore most pupilsnand perhaps cause revulsion among the more intelligent.nAnd it is not civics courses, primarily, that form minds andnconsciences of the rising generation: it is the study ofnliterature, rather. What mischief has been done in thatndiscipline is suggested by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition ofnMan. I should not wish to see what remains of genuinenhumane letters in the average public school supplanted bynan official propaganda about the holiness of the AmericannWay or the Free World Way.nDuring the late 60’s and early 70’s, I wandered over then