32 / CHRONICLESnwhat he imagines to be a circle ofnkindred souls anticipating his ownnmind-set, he assigns no real significancento ideas not dependent on materialninterests.nHe treats Protestant traditionalists asnselectively as he does the exponents ofnthe work ethic. Diggins claims to admirenthe Evangelical Christians of then1850’s for mobilizing Americansnagainst slavery. He also praises thenPuritan component in American culturenfor raising the sights of a nation ofnshopkeepers. Yet, Diggins rages againstnmodern Evangelicals, calling themnbigots and racists for opposing abortionnand gay liberation. Such tirades arenunworthy of a serious historian. Doesnhe really believe that Cotton Mathernor Jonathan Edwards would have beennless critical of the counterculture thannJerry Falwell? Does he think that CalvinistnAbolitionists such as Lewis Tappannor Black Southern Baptists of 40nyears ago would have been less “bigoted”nabout radical life-styles than thenSouthern Baptist Convention?nDiggins should and does know better.nAt his best he is a perceptivenintellectual historian, at home in thenworld of ideas. I myself am indebted tonhis critical understanding of the Americannconservatism of the 1950’s. UnlikenJames Henretta, Gerda Lerner,nStraw Men and Ideologuesn’It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he saidnand however he Battered, when he got me to hisnhouse, he would sell me for a slave.”n—John BunyannKenneth Minogue: Alien Powers:nThe Pure Theory of Ideology; St.nMartin’s Press; New York; $27.50.nKenneth Minogue explains at thenoutset that he prefers a narrowndefinition of “ideology”: the word refersnnot to all action-oriented systemsnof belief but only to certain types ofnfalse ones. The “central idea” discerniblenin the lives and thoughts of “ideologists,”nhe says, “is so abstract that it isnless a doctrine than a machine forngenerating doctrines, and its simplestnformulation is that all evils are causednby an oppressive system. One of itsnmore important corollaries is that truthnis a weapon. This is the pure theory ofnideology, and my aim is to explore itsnlogical and rhetorical character.” Minoguendoes not provide one comprehensivendefinition of ideology, butnscattered throughout the book arenstatements that may be combined tonsuggest a definition: “any doctrinenwhich presents one hidden and savingntruth about the evils of the world in thenAileen S. Kraditor is ProfessornEmerita of Boston University andnauthor of The Radical Persuasion,n1890-1917.nby Aileen S. Kraditornform of social analysis” is an ideology,nas is any “philosophical type of allegiancenpurporting to transcend thenmere particularities of family, religionnnnand other protesting historians, Digginsnhas not achieved recognition bynsneering at established social moralityn—or by blasting the capitalist systemnthat pampers its despisers. Despite hisntoeing of the party line, he has notnprogressed professionally as far as hencould have, had he been a more stridentnradical and a less scrupulousnscholar. Perhaps a bit of friendly criticismnmay encourage him to abandonnthe 60’s entirely. As one graying historiannto another, I urge him to find newnsources of inspiration and to stopnsearching for the living among thenmentally dead. ccnor native hearth, [whose] essence liesnin struggle” between just two enemies,non the battlefield that is the world.nBecause “ideology is the belief thatneverything that happens is explicablenin terms of the relevant structure” ofnsociety, all ideologists share a “hostilitynto modernity: to liberalism in politics,nindividualism in moral practice,nand the market in economics.” Mino-n