However, I’d think twice about defining conservatism as the only non-ideology (or anti-ideology) possible. Philosophical doubt can take a variety of forms, and can even lead to contradictory political principles.

For example, some might believe that doubt should logically lead to skepticism pure and simple, which would go hand-in-hand with the idea of “Inactivism” you set out above.

However, some might view doubt as leading to a kind of “fallabilism” that would be more in tune with classical conservatism of the Burkean variety, which is known as espousing a “reformist” mentality.

Yet others may take a point between those two, like the Pragmatist tradition in America. Such a view can be seen in the social liberalism of John Dewey.

So in this wide variety of opinion “ideology” as such could be avoided. The idea is not to do away with politics. We would still have plenty to disagree about. The real idea is to introduce the idea of our human limitations. The idea is NOT that truth doesn’t exist, but that our capabilities for aquiring it and comprehending it are limited.

There’s probably not much difference, but from p. 273 of The Conservative Soul, consider Sullivan’s own words …

“There will always be individuals whose plight is not of their own making; or some whose folly has led them into difficulty or despair that may, in the last resort, require government to step reluctantly in to help. No government can prevent such misfortune; no government ever has. But a government can do substantive, practical things to help ameliorate the worst of it.

“This is the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. A conservative believes in a small but strong government. He doesn’t want to abolish government because he believes that only government can secure freedom” (i.e., basic safety/security, which enables the free pursuit of life, liberty, happiness).

How is his “conservative” different from a libertarian?