The author is writing about a particular chapter in The Politics of Prudence and how the author believes it conflicts with ideological libertarianism along with all other ideology. And he is correct that it does, indeed, condemn it when carried to its ideological extremes.
Four years ago, the very first thread I posted was about that very chapter. You can read much of Kirk's actual wording from the chapter by going back to that thread: The Errors of Ideology
Now my general agreement with Kirk's take on Ideology as "a simple, hidden, saving truth" the is actually a lie doesn't seperate me from those libertarians that hold that label as a general collection of principles, but it does point out the dangers of a certain brand of pure ideological libertarianism that is a false hope in my opinion.
Our political systems shouldn't "immanetize the symbols of transcendance" as Voegelin would say.