Most of what we now call "ideology" isn't even ideology. I don't know how people who don't understand the basic heritage of most of the ideas they hear even listen to anything. Most of the points of disagreement between two competing ideologies aren't that significant in the end analysis. They are at least small in number, and should be understandable well by proponents and opponents alike. But run on the track of narrative, and they gain a lot of power.

But I view the idea that this is a reflection of anything approaching actual "power" to be questionable. It's holding a mirror up to people and asking them to approve. There's no "gain" from it, outside of areas where we're attempting to measure opinion. Now, it does get people elected. But look how well that is going.

I miss people like Wm. F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens, who would acknowledge their biases and even explain the reasons behind them. There is a PBS "Independent Lens", "Best Enemies" that seems to identify the exact point at which the present era began - the 1968 "debates" between Buckley and Gore Vidal. ABC "won" ratings with it and it's been downhill ever since.