(Well, I didn't, four years ago, call Daniel Larison a vulgar ideologue. I suggested that his polemic on that occasion stooped to that level, in a way I found typical for American Conservative conservatism. Since then, I've rather lost touch with his work, so have no fresh opinion on it.)

Thanks, Mr. McK. I don't see the Rs in any better a position, nor the independents for that matter. All the People's Political Scientists and all the People's Political Consultants can't solve the peculiar form of paralysis built into America's contradictory constitution (not the same as, but certainly including the form of its written Constitution). It seems to take catastrophe to do that work, but the great news is that we are sure to get catastrophe. Indeed, we may already have gotten it, and may just be waiting for the larger waves to reach the shore.

It's a common tactic in scholasticism (vide Edward Feser) to take a term of religio-philosophical significance (such as "creation" or "eternity") that has a commonly understood meaning (the kind of meaning that one will find in the dictionary definition of such terms) and lend that term a specialized meaning--one that serves the purpose of making something that is intrinsically implausible to common sense seem less so--then proceed to characterize those who don't use the term according to its specialized meaning as unsophisticated vulgarians and ignoramuses.

The tactic has more to do with rhetorical legerdemain than philosophy and we see it employed here with supremely eloquent cheek.

That being said, Larison certainly is an ideologue--though "bourgeois" strikes me as a better adjective than "vulgar".