That's what I mean. It seems to be one of those political terms that takes on a completely different meaning in the US than in Europe. Here, the term describes a closed system of political, social and sometimes religious beliefs that is uncompromising and intolerant of other ideas. If somebody uses the term in a modern political context, it is always as a derogatory term against a political opponent, to indicate they are bigoted and irrational. Fascism and Communism are ideologies, and if you are saying a politician is following an ideology or doing things for ideological reasons, you basically mean they are promoting totalitarian mindset.
That's fair, sure with that definition of the term I agree with you.
Semantics aside, I've been mulling over this idea for the past day and, at least in the US, you can divide politicians into a few main categories (with some crossover in each). First, those who are ideologues who are there to promote some sort of world view. E.g. Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, AOC, the new senator from Kansas Josh Hawley). Second, those who are in it for money, power, or to promote the political welfare of their party, i.e. partisans. These include Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Susan Collins. These are the folks who you hear about often in the news and are extremely influential within the party, but you'll find they often talk less about policy and more about politics. Finally, those who are primarily concerned about representing their constituencies. These folks often come from swing states, states that are opposite of their party, or have enough political clout that they can avoid national pressure in favor of local interests. This includes Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Jared Polis, Amy Klobuchar. Don't confuse these folks for populists.
Ideally, everybody would fall into that third category. Politicians, after all, should exist to lobby for the interests of the people they represent and who vote them into office. With the current political system, however, all three are necessary and you have no chance of getting what you want passed without each. To Perun's point, I can see how his understanding of ideology as a neutral term could be a bad thing. It creates divide and promotes this two party system where the welfare of the country is secondary to "winning."
To the original question. The coronavirus hasn't changed my own opinion on various issues, but it has led me to some conclusions:
- I always thought that once we start seeing real consequences of climate change, climate skeptics would start coming around and see the urgency of the issue. Unfortunately, the reaction to COVID has made me realize that most of these people will continue to deny it even as Kansas becomes a coastal state.
- Teflon Don is a myth. Those who aren't engaged in politics could easily ignore Trump's incompetence when it didn't impact them directly. So he has some foreign policy blunders that affects countries most Americans can't point to on a map. Big deal, American life is more or less the same. But a massive screwup on a pandemic that destroys the economy and leads to a slew of preventable cases and deaths, that actually kinda matters and the chances of him turning the ship around and winning in November decrease everyday.
