Yours is a natural objection, and some of my positions were said ideological, sometimes to show that the word can be thrown back at myself, sometimes because (I'm well aware) they actually sound biased.
I call ideologists lesson givers and Keepers of the Truth because the only self-criticism they seem capable of is rather for not being puritanical enough. This is true for the left as for the right, for libertarians, conservatives, or neocons. Eliot Spitzer in the article I quoted said just that.

But as I said above, while doubt, keeping an open mind, questioning and self-questioning, are fundamental, this shouldn't stop one from being pragmatic about things, and avoid getting closed in a vicious circle of relativism.
If we quit the philosophical scene and leave aside ideologies, we'll likely notice there actually are quite a lot of things we know already, but refuse to see, admit, or whose importance we diminish because it doesn't fit with our previous positions or preferred ideology.
The only way to show there's no artificial bias, is sound, honest argumenting.

I gave several examples, that I called obvious:

• work conditions today, and the political bias of certain unions (that we're not allowed to contest, for risk of appearing in favour of corporations, against the workers);
  
• freemarketeers' ideological bias (which we cannot criticize without being accused of socialism);
  
• social conditioning (if we contest its preponderance, it usually follows we would support biological determination and traditionally imposed social roles);
  
• racism (whenever I brought forth cultural differences as the main cause for xenophobia, I've been accused of denying French institutional racism)

On the other thread, enouncing this simple idea: it always goes both ways (be it about gender discrimination, immigrant integration, or other things), it was perceived by some as "alien", politely contested - until I dared call nursing a noble profession, thus excluding a whole range of arguments at the base of woman discrimination claims; hence I "became" a mysoginist; when I dared more (I am brave, am I not! :) ) and said work conditions today don't compare with those 100 years ago, ah, that, was an ideological statement, pay was brought into discussion (which I never mentioned), I "became" a thatcherian propagandist.  

The only way to show my good faith and my only concern: finding the truth, was to present the two facets and frame it as a question.
Can you really not see how precipitated, ill-thought and ideological these conclusions are?

Of course, you can always turn my reasoning at me and say that by claiming common sense, I would decide what is true and what is not, I would bring forth my certitudes.
This will always be the risk for rational pragmatists: "how dare you say things are so, impose your own truth, claiming logic and pragmatism? it's just a rhetorical method to exclude others' truths!"

False issues. Theoretical. Ideological. We actually know a lot of stuff as true already; relative stuff is much less than we like to admit. Nuancing is not the same thing as relativism. Seeing both sides of a problem, for instance, the employee's and the manager's, the man's and the woman's, the immigrant's and the local's, is an indispensable tool in finding solutions, and a proof of fundamental good faith.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)