there's a problem with ideology

"'Let me tell you something, Paul', the Bear said in a slow voice, as if he were lifting his heavy paw for a shattering blow. 'If high culture is coming to an end, it is also the end of you and your paradoxical ideas, because paradox as such belongs to high culture and not to childish prattle. You remind me of the young men who supported the Nazis or communists not out of cowardice, or out of opportunism, but out of an excess of intelligence. For nothing requires more thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. I experienced it with my own eyes and ears after the war, when intellectuals and artists rushed like a herd of cattle into the Communistic Party, which soon proceeded to liquidate them systematically and with great pleasure. You are doing the same. You are the brilliant ally of of your own gravediggers.'"

I don't know where to start with this one. Not because I'm without anything to say, but because I'm wondering where to start. A passage like this makes me immediately look at myself in the mirror. I don't really identify myself as a liberal, but my friends would say that I am. Rob used to call me a "commie pinko bastard" with great affection :-). Although, I don't eagerly jump into the ACLU parades, and I'm not referring to political thought, or legislation. For me, liberal and conservative thought, if we are to pit the two against each other, represents a different approach to how you see the world. Although, does it represent a different approach to living your life? There are those who will vehemently proclaim that they live out their ideal to the fullest, and I will immediately wonder if that eagerness comes from intellectual pride or hope (based on books read, associations, surrounding culture) or the belief that their way of thinking ultimately leads to a better life for us all, and does that ideal always represent the best way to solve a problem. I've always thought that when people repeat that old saying, "There's no such thing as atheist in a fox hole", in a way that sums up the whole question. I wonder if ideologies ever remain unaltered after being stained by practice and blood. Do they remain perfect when not faced with the wrench of humanity? There is a Pedro the Lion song that asks, "have you ever seen an idealist with grey hair on his head." Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nadar, Dennis Kucinich...are these men idealist? Or are they merely men with hope? Dick Cheney, or Rumsfeld, ...are these men merely realists? Does ideology (conservative or liberal), after launching movements with benign and honest intentions, hinder those causes from moving forward due to the impassioned obstinate nature of those involved? Is pragmatism a surrender or an amended approach? There are those who protest wars who will be the first to have their family and their ideas destroyed. There are those who launch attacks will open doors for the void to be filled by opportunists with bad ideas. There are those who will protest capital punishment on the steps of a courthouse in Texas, and then pull the trigger by rote reaction when a madman kills his firstborn. When the free market swallows it's champions, they will be the first in the soup line. Exposure to the unpleasant reality will throw any idealist in a tailspin. How can one support Ayn Rand and socialism all at once? I suppose one who explores the past and confronts problems with an open mind will always be an impressionable example a sober common sense approach, but that person may not be the best leader. There is room in this world for everyone, the madmen and the priests. This topic deserves more of a discussion (and more research on my part), and ultimately leads to morality and human nature. Do the fence sitters have the right idea?