I would say that this is ideology; it’s successful ideology, where a group no longer has to consciously maintain it.

It seems possible that they have enough sense of history to have caught that tendency and tried to correct for it.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/latest-updates-on-egypts-transition-2/

Also, the Ben Hubbard article linked here is still summarized with the phrase that now does not appear in the article body any longer (“The size of the protests underlined the large section of society that has rejected the military intervention that deposed President Mohamed Morsi.”) in various aggregation pages within the Times site. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mohamed_morsi/index.html or http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html for example.)

The general point is well taken though.

But your choice of examples also avoids one of the contentions of the critique from the right: that the shared consciousness (=ideology) is not only that of a narrow political and journalistic elite, but also of a larger liberal social elite–which includes, you know, academics and You. Let us take for granted that I can cite a whole range of examples from the Culture War, where I think your language and your silences indicate your shared consciousness with this governing elite, and that the debate about the substance of those issues would be repetitive and obnoxious. (Or, alternately, if you prefer, your shared consciousness with a radical grouping a slight distance from the governing elite on at least some issues of significance.) You ought, however, to consider this critique as you make your own, and to articulate an acknowledgment of it; self-consciousness on this issue preferable to unconsciousness.

On the meta-level, I think you frame this as the Insight of a Virtuous Outsider, Critique Reliable because not Complicit. I would avoid this, because I take this sort of critique to be more effective when it involves self-critique–self-situation within the Fallen World, rather than a claim to Authority by dint of Saintly Insight. If it truly isn’t an ideological critique, than it is one which ought to implicate you in the general trends of human nature–and if it doesn’t, then it is a claim to a Higher Consciousness on your behalf, not shared by humanity at large. This is a self-regard I think you do not mean to embrace; hence I would recommend an alternate rhetorical mode.

We are all fireflies, save Winston Churchill, who was a glow-worm.

(I know that I’ve said similar things before. On some level, I suppose it’s trivial. And yet, and yet, it still seems important to say, since skipping the articulation of this sort of self-consciousness does lead, it seems to me, to a rather pernicious self-regard, and, consequently, self assurance. You’ve spoken on occasion of the need for a variety of modesties, in epistemology and policy; what I natter on about is what I take to be a complementarily modest mode of approach to the world.)