The method employed by ideologically inclined scholars has been aptly described by the philosopher Leo Strauss: "Historians who start from the belief in the superiority of present-day thought to the thought of the past feel no necessity to understand the past by itself: they understand it as only a preparation for the present. When studying a doctrine of the past, they do not ask primarily, What was the conscious and deliberate intention of its originator? They prefer to ask, What is the contribution of the doctrine to our beliefs?.." (cf Chapter 9 of Thomas Pangle’s Rebirth of classical political rationalism, p 209). As a result their scholarship is eclipsed by propaganda.
The net result of this hermeneutical zeal is cynicism, the erosion of faith in democratic institutions, and the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies. It is rather like the effect that decades of relativism and deconstructive mania have had on Western polities, which we are told, is now in a 'post-truth' era. Having contributed to the political erosion of objectivity, some of us are now awakening to the value of truth, both in politics and in historiography.