An ideology is a fixed set of ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. But the adoption of third-party sets of ideas without enquiring whether the elements in those sets make sense together, or if some of them make sense at all, that can become a real problem.
Would you rather
from right_wing import *
from left_wing import *
Let's illustrate these imports with book purchases, following the market wisdom of "customers who bought this item have also bought..."
If you bought The Holy Bible – Matthew et al., you might as well want to buy Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, and pre-order Thomas Sowell's Social Justice Fallacies. If, on the other hand, you bought The Capital, either Carl Marx's or Thomas Piketty's, Women by Charles Bukowski might be on your wish list.
Does a positive correlation between a morally bound sex life and an apetite for economic freedom make any logical sense? And why would the desire for market performance correlate with not supporting universal education, if that wastes a significant part of the potential talent pool? Why would opposition to euthanasia correlate with the support for the death penalty? Why should a belief in creationism correlate with the right to bear arms?
These are just a few examples of poorly matched ideas. Whatever historical reason got them together 200 years ago is irrelevant for today's rational thinkers:
Rather than embrace cliché sets of ideas that sort people into ideological boxes, we must start to assess individual ideas, and avoid logically inconsistent agendas. We have to remix.
This is true for politics, for our personal lives, and for the workplace.
Many things in life are better when combined with specific other things. When it comes to ideas, the available prepackaged sets are logically inconsistent. By adopting them without examination, we are selecting a tribe, rather than exercising our freedom.