Ideologies

Laws, rules, and other processes for governing behavior and thought, in order to be consistent (required for them to be logical) must go from general to specific.

That is:
First, lay out [general] conditions and definitions:
eg.

Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being
premeditated is defined as …
killing is defined as …
human is defined as …

Then move to consequences / moral statements

eg.

Murder is morally wrong because to believe that murder is right introduces inherent contradictions as outlined by Stephan Molyneaux in his work … (visit freedomainradio.com for a rational secular morality)
The consequences for murder should be sanctions upon the murderer as outlined in such and such penal code

Enforcing this generalized system means that individual cases are first evaluated on whether the cause is correct, and then on what action must be taken.
For example:

Imagine a rule that says:
“All organizations that enforce racial or religious discrimination are barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America.”
Many people would nominally agree with this rule, but it’s irrelevant for this discussion whether one does.
Accept for the moment that such a rule exists, and subsequent definitions for organization, discrimination, recieving, and federal money.
If such a rule existed, we might apply a line of reasoning like the following:

The KKK is an organization.  [Check the definition of organization - any useful definition would probably cover the KKK]
The KKK enforces racial and/or religious discrimination.  [I guess we'd have to check the definition of enforce, as well as historical actions taken by the KKK]
Therefore the KKK must be barred from receiving federal money from the USA.

not an unreasonable result… Lets try another one:

Nations are organizations of people.  [we'd have to check the definition of organization above to be sure, but this is not unreasonable]
Israel is a nation. [It claims it is... and there are a lot of nations in the middle east whose leaders and people wish it wasn't]
Israel enforces religious discrimination.  [It's proud of the fact that any Jew can become a citizen, but other religions are not equally protected]
Israel is _therefore_ an organization that enforces religious discrimination.
Israel, therefore, is barred from receiving federal money from the United States of America.

This line of reasoning could of course be used to block federal money from being sent to any huge number of intolerant states.

Okay.  What’s the problem?  Why am I bothering to address this issue?
Many people put the cart before the horse in many situations like this.  Rather than first laying out rules and systems (an ideology) for who or what is worthy of support (engineering practices, nations, laws, etc.), people instead put their support behind whatever is personally convenient, and then try to form an ideology behind that.

This would lead to self contradictory ideologies, if people were okay with that.  Unfortunately, people justifiably have an aversion to self contradiction and instead start inserting implied ‘except for’ clauses into their rulesets.  The ultimate ‘except for’ clause is god, of course, but many have ‘except for’ clauses that basically say ‘except for when that would cause me personal inconvenience or would imply that I’m a hypocrite.’
These convoluted, changing, and often self-contradictory ideologies get names slapped on them like conservatism, liberalism, marxism, libertarianism, socialism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

A side effect is that these ad-hoc ideologies become so convoluted that experts can and do argue about the relative merits of all these ideologies without arriving at any conclusions… Which makes great TV.

The complete obfuscation allows anyone to apply pretty much whatever label they feel like to themselves without even realizing they’re advocating a hypocritical position.

Are there ideologies that are consistent out there?

Probably.  There are a few that I’ve seen that seem internally and externally consistent.  Their primary feature is a lack of support for any sort of institutionalized coercive mechanism.