Actually, there is not as much ado as there should be. It is not only about something, but about something malignant, threatening not only the health of our society, but the very existence of the American democracy. The snake oil peddlers from earlier times would never dare stoop to the lying labels of today's politicians and political advocates. Not only do modern-day hucksters misrepresent in their own labeling, they deliberately put false labels on the competition. Going even further, getting more subtle, more devious, and more dangerous, they invade the very mindset of the culture -- its "ideology" -- to change the very meaning of the words people seek on labels to identify both the general contents and individual ingredients.

" Ideology" is right up there with "liberal" and "conservative" among the labeling words certain politicians and media folk should have on their "look it up" vocabulary lists. For one thing, "liberal" is not the opposite of "conservative." I looked them up way back in yesteryear, and learned this about myself:

Philosophically, I am a liberal. I do believe people should have the right to extend their fists right up to the point where another's nose begins...

Pragmatically, I am a conservative. I want to conserve the freedoms our liberal forefathers gained for us in establishing this country and it's conservative liberal Constitution.

Ideologically, I am a Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots fan.

Ideology is a functional necessity in human society. Even the most philosophical individuals willingly adopt and conform to some ideology. It is not mindless surrender, but convenient submission to group wisdom within reasonable bounds. We all drive on the same side of the road and go along in varying levels with certain conventions of dress, language and mannerisms because it works. The idiological dimension we call "ettiquette" is the driver's manual for the off-road traffic of daily life; we at least get out of each others way, avoiding dire costs from personal inconvenience to national calamity. We get things done, and sometimes have fun. Admittedly (and proudly), I run with the herd with abandon for my Red Sox and Patriots. I soared in ecstatic delirium as the Pats and Sox roared into the new millenium with championship teams, making the despised NY Yankees the team of the last century! It's why I agreed with my Massachusetts neighbors (when I lived there) that the Massachusetts Border Patrol should do more to keep Yankee fans from slipping into our state, using our services, sending their kids to our schools, and taking our jobs…. A tad extreme? Of course, but not at all inappropriate because sports is all about play and fantasy. It's a stage separated from the real world, and going nuts is what fans do.

It's also what lynch mobs do, along with ideologically-driven "liberals" and "conservatives." I know no folks who would knowingly brag about letting the mob rule their thinking on serious matters. Still that is what people are actually saying about themselves when they refer to their "personal ideology." It is difficult to give credence to someone who claims to be a "thinking" liberal or conservative when the very word they use to describe their thinking (i.e., "ideology") means it is simply what everyone around them thinks. The irony is that when they say that, they are probably right...

Sometimes ideology evolves spontaneously from the culture as people simply find ways to communicate and cooperate for the common good. At other times it is created and managed as the deliberate strategic effort of a few who have their own reasons to manipulate the crowd. Ideological creation, management, or manipulation can be open and honest; it is what cheerleaders and advertisers do, as well as leaders and managers. Organizational managers really manage the culture of their organizations, instilling the organizational values in its members; and public relations people and marketing specialists all work to steer the culture of the greater society around them. So do advocates of social causes and -- of course -- politicians. Motives range from selfless to predatory, methods from open to subtle to clandestine. The matter of honesty has its own complex of elements involving clarity and angle of perspective, strength of character, self awareness, and depth of bias.

Wise people keep their heads up, using their own intelligence, personal taste, and moral compass as they feel themselves drawn into the crowd movements. Their philosophy will screen the ideology for junk. Those with personal integrity won't be drawn into simple acceptance. Those with courage will not only stand firm on principle, but speak out in resistance to what they see as wrong and harmful. Heroes will point always to the truth even when it exposes the illusions, delusions and lies among friends and allies -- and they will pay the price for that nobility.

It is especially sinister when that "price" is not just the instinctive mob response, but the calculated prescribed punishment by unscrupulous idiologues who have harnessed ideological power to suffocate not only those who speak out, but who dare to even think independently. It is in recognizing this ever-present and evil social reality that one comes to understand what is "liberal" and what is "illiberal," what is "conservative" and what is "unconservative." -- and to realize that "conservative" and "liberal" are not necessarily polar opposites.

We should know the difference between "ideology" and "philosophy" because just understanding those terms helps us talk to one another about how ideas form, and how some might manipulate our thinking. Similarly, it is critical to understand that the words, "liberal" and "conservative," are far more than labels to identify what contemporary political group we run with. Again, some still maintain -- as I said above -- that it is indeed much ado about nothing -- "only semantics," as some might put it. A common argument is that definitions change, and I should simply accept whatever the modern definitions are of "liberal" and "conservative,"

When people say "modern" or "contemorary" because they think it's all about time, a matter of replacing old defintions with new -- usually with no idea at all that the terms are still there today in other places on the planet beyond the U.S. political stage. Such people miss the point that such "modern" meanings burn bridges to not only all historical events and persons which logically often justify their very positions, but even to such events and persons in the contemporary world beyond the American political stage:

• Historically, Christ was killed by conservatives because of his liberal views, and the following things were brought about by liberals over conservative resistance: the U.S. Revolution (Tories were conservatives), the end to slavery (abolitionists were liberals), the end of segregation (segregationists were conservative, integrationists liberal).
• In Russia and China, conservatives are communist while liberals preach democracy. Islamic fundamantalists (especially terrorists) are purely conservative -- not a liberal bone in their bodies.

As we continue, we will look at the heart of the matter -- the difference between liberal and conservative philosophies. For the moment, consider this one thought. There are as many perspectives on the same object issues, facts, or ideas as there are people. Thinking people will therefore differ in what they see, and consequently in what they conclude. It is almost statistically impossible for complete agreement on all issues among thinking people in any group of any appreciable size. Yet group agreement does occur, and it is clear evidence of the power of ideology over philosophy. i.e., that some persons proudly waveing the conservative or liberal banner may be neither conservative nor liberal, but merely ideological robots.