I also think that both accusations are true. I think Bush waffles a lot, particularly on (what he perceives as) peripheral issues, because I don't think the man stands for much of anything. He is clearly not for smaller government. He's not for reducing social programs. The only issue on which he seems to be steadfast is reducing taxes. But when he realizes that an issue is important, particularly one that is critical to re-election, he makes a decision, and he'll distort the facts to support it. His resolution is not based on any ideology but on the ideas that making money and having power are good in and of themselves.

In some respects, he is worse than an ideologue, whom you can predict at least. Bush is irrational and thus unpredictable, hence the reason he is a conservative squish. But he is not a pragmatic, problem solver either, as evidenced by his manipulating contradicting facts. As anyone who truly solves problems can tell you, your real focus is on solving the problem, not a specific solution, and you are willing to admit when a solution has failed. In fact, I would argue that from my experience, good problem solving requires an absence of ego. If you focus on yourself, then you will generally fail to solve the problem well. And, if you are preoccupied with securing power for yourself, you're focused on yourself, not the problems at hand.

I think it's an unresolved quandry, whether Bush is an ideologue or not, just as it's unresolved how much he's in charge and how much things are run by his handlers. Certainly, one can say that, compared to his father, for instance, he's taken positions that are much more distinctly ideologically-motivated, but whether the motivation is his own or not is difficult to determine.

Reagan presented the same problem during his tenure in office: is he is charge, or just a mouthpiece? These questions were never asked of any other recent President I can think of. Certainly there was no doubt that LBJ was in charge, or Kennedy, or Nixon, or Carter, for that matter. (Ford wasn't around long enough for the question to come up.) Is it just a coincidence that the two administrations which have done the most to tear down the infrastructure of the post-war liberal state and institute right-wing oriented "solutions" have had at the helm men about whom it's difficult to know if they're in charge, or did someone realize that to push through that radical agenda it was necessary that a certain amount of distance be created between the guy in the White House and what was being done to the country?

In poll after poll, the American people, when presented with Democratic/liberal solution versus Republican/conservative solutions, almost always opt for the former over the latter, and because of this the leaders of the right have surely realized that if they're upfront and honest about what their goals and intentions are, they'd never achieve them -- because the voters would reject them outright. So the solution is to mask their agenda by employing as a figurehead a personable and nice guy against whom (they hope) it's difficult for people to hold animus.

If he is a figurehead, I mean. But it really doesn't matter if he is or not, he's reponsible for everything done in his name, whether he's a puppet or a take-charge leader.