Voegelin, from Autobiographical Reflections:

“…I have been called every conceivable name by partisans of this or that ideology. I have in my files documents labeling me a Communist, a Fascist, a National Socialist, an old liberal, a new liberal, a Jew, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Platonist, a neo-Augustinian, a Thomist, and of course a Hegelian — not to forget that I was supposedly strongly influenced by Huey Long. This list I consider of some importance, because the various characterizations of course always name the pet bete noire of the respective critic and give, therefore, a very good picture of the intellectual destruction and corruption that characterize the contemporary academic world. Understandably I have never answered criticisms of this kind; critics of this type can become objects of inquiry but they cannot be partners in a discussion.”

The practical danger of this type of statement (though it is undeniably true in some cases) is that it provides a ready-made attitude by which a conservative soul can automatically reject a whole swath of -isms (like Postmodernism) as suspected ideology simply for being associated (however loosely) with known ideologies, or to even dismiss a new and apparently non-nonsensical or irrational philosophical position that requires effort to understand.

This sort of out-of-hand exteriorized dismissal (as an object to observe and explain rather than  a fellow-I to hear out and learn from), is one of the most useful ideologist’s devices. And it prevents him from being a partner in a discussion because he’s too busy observing and inquiring into your true motives to hear what you’re trying to tell him.