The way we construct our classification of ideas is an important way to distinguish and understand the breadth of mechanisms and values that they encompass. However, there are many ways in which this is harmful to the development of new interpretations and perpetuation of old ideological concepts and stances. The main reason that this is an issue, is because of how we attach meaning and how we form our opinions based on experiences. Basically, we see as we experience. So, the way we understand things, ultimately impacts the choices we make. When applied to the ideology of politics and social constructs, nomenclature develops and ingrains symbolic and experiential stigma that make it difficult to develop nuance and transformation within commonly understood paradigms. The use of ideological labels without the content of the normative interpretation is a detrimental stagnation of thought and the understanding of ideas. (label without the meaning) or the use of ideological labels to encompass a position that has several corresponding constructs of a normative concept but does not represent the interpretations commonly associated with the term. (Fractionized meaning and blanket label)

The Trump campaign is a good example of the ‘label without meaning issue’ that ideological nomenclature presents. Trump ran under a republican banner; this could potentially influence voters that respond to the republican party. This however, is a diminishing association of ideological support and label http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ Yet, there remains an underlying the connection between label and ideas in populations that are not involved and not participatory to the progression of candidate platforms. The real issue in this aspect of association, is that the label is meaningless to the content of the candidates’ platform that would be commonly associated to the party. This leads to both associative values and understanding of the direction of policy. This impacts a low information voter more than in comparison to higher informed voters and the former can choose based solely on the party or candidate history, as opposed to the content of the ideas which either represents. More appropriate labels are discounted from common dialogue because of the fixed terms attached to political parties, thus limiting the depth of discourse and failing to label what trump represents ideologically with what he associates with normatively.

Onthe other hand, progressive platforms and ideas can be labelled adversely due to the content of their ideological structure. Even worse so, is the blacklisting of terms due to the stigma of society. a good example of this is communism and McCarthyism, which stigmatized the conversation of communism in increasingly economically disparaging times, due to the ‘Fractionized meaning and blanket labels’ of false communist societies emerging at the time and the war for liberty and freedom. Which neither spread liberty or freedom or improved the local freedoms of the liberators, only the pockets of the war mongers. This prevails to modern day. In addition, political agendas in America that have deeper social democratic platforms, can gain negative connotations. This is both because the stigma of nomenclature and the inflexibility of ideological understanding. This causes the same low-information people to vote with traditional association instead of real platform support. As well as the perception of value in a class structure (https://medium.com/@jamesrhule/if-what-we-value-defines-us-why-are-most-of-us-blind-b49460e114f7#.ckfcwv5bx ). As we saw with the Trump campaign it was the platform and labels that caught voters, but the interpretation of the ideas will be far different, not in the interest of the voters, due to the inflexibility of ideas and the static interpretation of ideological platforms…. and Trump’s a blatant liar which doesn’t help, careful of the swamp.

consciousness history news philosophy physics politics science spirituality