In the case of the latter, two possible explanations were offered to explain what Mark was trying to say. The first of these were in our own combox:
Mark wasn't saying that Ledeen supports Communism or is responsible for 100 million deaths, only that Ledeen shares the underlying philosophy of the Communist apart from Communism's accidental features like state ownership of everything and the color red. That philosophy, for lack of a snazzier term, is Evilism.
So, according to Mark:
1) Communist butchers believed in Evilism, which allowed them to kill 100 million people.
2) Michael Ledeen believes in Evilism, as can clearly be seen from his work.
3) Therefore it is a good idea to link to this article about Communism killing 100 million people with a Ledeen quote expounding Evilism.
I think that Victor answered it pretty well, so I will repost his response:
Yes, but because "evil" is (1) not an ideology or a program; and (2) comes in so many mutually incompatible flavors, "evilism" is not a meaningful term of political discourse. You might as well use the equally capacious term "politics" and so smear everyone who practiced politics from Pericles to Hillary with every sin ever committed in the name of "evilism/politics."
I am right in assuming that the ridiculousness of this child-like Shavian thought [sic] process [sic] that had to be you point, correct?
Actually, reading anonymous's comment again, I'm not sure that I was ironic/sarcastic. I mean this ...
Mark [said] ... only that Ledeen shares the underlying philosophy of the Communist apart from Communism's accidental features like state ownership of everything and the color red.
... reads disturbingly serious.
What "underlying philosophy" would that be?
It cannot be "evilism," particularly coming from a man who loudly insists that he realizes that nobody practices evil for its own sake. On these very terms, there can be no essentialist ideology as "evilism," distinguished only by accidental opinions like nationalism, history, property, religion, classes, institutions and all the rest of the things that distinguish the various ideologies from one another, whether good, bad or indifferent.
Nor can the "underlying philosophy" be "the end justifies the means," because that presupposes that there are in fact ends. Consequentialist philosophy is not an ideology in itself for that very reason. Even on Shea's kindergarten caricature terms, consequentialism does not, cannot, tell you what consequences are desireable (only that, once you've determined that, all means are acceptable).
State ownership of everything is not an "accidental feature" of Communism (certainly not as the color red is accidental). If anything can be called its "underlying philosophy," collective property ownership would be it.
Mark offered his own explanation over at Blosser's:
I merely note that his consequentialist arguments are identical with those of the Duranty "you must break eggs to make omelettes" school of apologetics. Anybody can be a consequentialist, not just a Communist. And consequentialist moral reasoning leads to great evil. I think you can figure that out.
Except, as Victor notes, consequentialism is a philosophy rather than an ideology. I also don't think that it is nearly as self-evident as Mark does that Ledeen is a consequentialist (he has written columns against torture, for instance), but then I don't subscribe to the worst possible view of the man as the source of all that now ills Iraq who seeks to murder prisoners at every turn.
Moving on, I would note that Mark's jihad against fans of 24 continues apace. No word as to whether or not that degree of scorn applies to Jimmy Akin, who has himself used 24 when discussing the issue of torture as it relates to moral theology.