ideologue.

i'm having a hard time understanding the descriptions of our most recent supreme court nominees. it defies belief that we should be excited to think that someone doesn't have an ideology. in fact, the anti-ideology, anti-ideologue message that's been going around for some time now gave me such doubt of what i thought i believed that i had to look up "ideology" and "ideologue", confirming to myself that yes, ideology is an important thing to have in the world. in today's nyt, you can find an article entitled, "Court Choice Is Conservative by Nature, Not Ideology". ummm...what?

i wonder why so little of politics makes sense to me, why i understand so few governmental actions. and today, well. today, i think i figured it out: if everyone is running away from ideology, there is no consistency or coherence to anything. we are left holding pieces, rather than looking at the whole.

and we have all these white men stumbling around, saying, well, you know, i decide things based on merits. mmmhmmm. yes you do. the merits of white hegemonic male privilege. so that's what i think when i read about junior's "nature".

the only ones who can afford to claim they don't have an ideology are the ones whose ideology already rules.

oh. and hell yes, i'm an ideologue.