What does it matter if the judiciary falls prey to the politics of uncontrolable arbitrariness? It depands on which tribe you are affiliated with.

Judicial appointments are political, of course. But judicial branch politics is not the same politics as executive and legislative branch politics. The popular effort to treat judges the same way we treat governors and presidents, legislators and congressmen, threatens our historically independent judiciary.
[ BlueOregon: Toward an independent judiciary ]

Would it be "ideology" were I to advocate that the judiciary should prohibit any interested party of any incorporated entity from obtaining, by virtue of state incorporation laws, any greater privilege or immunity than that of any individual in their own private unincorporated economic affairs?

Let's start with my student loan, and that of all student loans. Each has an individual on one side and typically an incorporated entity on the other. It would almost by definition be contrary to the fair application of the equal privileges and immunities clause.

Consider the opposite proposition. Would it be "ideology" to ignore consideration of such issues of mutuality between contracting parties? In an earlier day the student loan thing might have instead been viewed as an adhesion contract, where an issue of inquiry includes examination of a significant differential in bargaining power. Here, it is the lenders that wish to avoid taxes for normal appropriations to fund higher ed while converting young folks into virtual slaves via debt, and it is treated as legislative public policy so as to halt the judiciary from protecting the individual by vindicating their inalienable right to avoid contracting themselves into slavery.

Would it be "ideology" to insist that the very purpose for the existence of our government, state and federal, is protection of the individual and individual liberty?

I think of ideologs as the enemies of liberty from the right and left that are bent on advancing authoritarianism, who's agendas are unachievable without first dispensing with individual liberty.

But, of course, is that not the very point of having an equal privileges and immunities clause . . . to halt the factionalization caused by embracing the ideologs?

But then again, ideolog could instead mean an attack word that can be wielded against those who would demand protection of the individual against powerful folks bent on factionalization.