How "ideology" became a term of abuse

Another interesting opinion piece in the pages of the Globe and Mail comes from political author John Semley. In it, he looks at the way in which the word "ideology" and, particularly, the word "ideologue, have been subverted to self-serving ends, even "weaponized" as Mr. Semley tells it.
The word "Ideology" was actually coined by the French Royalist sympathizer Antoine Destutt de Tracy as he spent time in a revolutionary jail during the Reign of Terror in the 1790s. In de Tracy's formulation, it referred to the "science of ideas", particularly political ideas, and was a neutral, even a positive, concept. "Ideologue", on the other hand, was coined, just a few years later, by no less a figure than Napoleon Bonaparte, and had from the start a much less positive connotation, especually as he applied it to the French Revolutionary movement.
Since then, "ideologue" has retained its negative, pejorative connotation, but "ideology" itself has also become a term of abuse, particularly in the mouths of, well, ideologues, like Jordan Peterson or Doug Ford. As often as not, the word is used in a phrase like "pure ideology" or "mere ideology", which is the speaker's attempt to brand a political opponent as morally and intellectually bankrupt, without having to justify such a contention.
As Mr. Semley says, "Ideology, then, has become something that someone else does". In the words of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who is soon to face off in a debate against ideologue-in-chief Jordan Peterson himself, ideology is "a composite of ideas, beliefs, concepts, and so on, destined to convince us of its 'truth', yet actually serving some unbowed particular interest".
How nice to hear a philosopher telling it like is (as opposed to a certain silver-tongued but disingenuous debater whose initials are not a million miles from JP...)