Friday I wrote that righties support Bush because of what he says, and lefties oppose him because of what he does. Today Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post notes that Bush is all talk, no walk.

As a practicing politician, Bush is hardly alone in experiencing the kinetic contradiction of declarations by deeds or omissions. But his still-assertive manner underscores a justified concern that Bush too often uses words in place of action. Is it enough for him to say that his job is to decide, to say he has decided and then to step aside so that all that follows is mere detail for others to work out?

Bush’s style of “leadership” is to declare what he wants to happen and to expect his underlings to make it happen. This is essentially his approach to Social Security reform, for example. He wants to switch part of the program to private accounts but doesn’t bother his smirky little head with the very thorny, and costly, process that would be required to accomplish this. Details are for the hired help to worry about.

Last week I quoted Richard Clarke:

Why has an administration that talks so much about terrorism and homeland security demonstrated so little competence when it comes to securing the homeland? Part of the reason is management style: the president says he sees his role as that of a CEO, but he performs like a non-executive chairman of the board, not a hands-on supervisor.

I doubt that Bush knows the difference. He thinks he’s done his job by declaring that he wants democratic government in Iraq. Then he heads off to the golf course. Mission accomplished.

Back to Jim Hoagland:

The gap between Bush’s declared goals and the means he chooses to accomplish them surfaced last week both in his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the ringing, well-argued rhetoric he deployed in a conceptually sound speech on Iraq and the global war on terrorism.

If a well-crafted speech about Iraq or a bristling, uncompromising defense of a murky judicial nomination could resolve those thorny problems, Bush could cross them off his list. But they can’t. So he can’t.

As I wrote Friday, the goals Bush presented in the speech sound just grand. I don’t disagree with any of them. Who can be opposed to replacing “hatred and resentment with democracy and hope”? And, hey, I’m all for peace and freedom. But by now even a potted plant should have noticed that, with Bush, the gap between rhetoric and results is vaster than the Pacific.

This is not to say that the Bush White House is entirely without skill. They are brilliant at winning elections, and they are expert at getting Congress to dance to their tune. Bush may be all talk when it comes to policy, but when it comes to politics, them jack boots are made for walkin’.

Hoagland asks an essential question,

It can be argued that the Miers nomination is also part of Bush’s continuing, concerted effort to flatten the policymaking landscape of Washington — to exercise control over the significant agencies of the federal government by populating them with loyalists from his White House. But that raises the unsettled, and unsettling, question: To what end? What does Bush believe he can accomplish through such control — other than avoiding the disastrous divisions of his first administration?

I’m sure he’s hoping to avoid prosecution, for one thing, but beyond that I think Bush is into power for the sake of power. The Bush White House is less a governing body than it is an old-style political machine. Political machines are not about issues or political agendas; they are about money and power. And with political machines, those in control are not necessarily those elected to office. Bush may still expect to call the shots from behind the scenes after his second term expires.

Although Bush does seem to care personally about Social Security “reform,” if not enough to sweat the details, for the most part he uses issues only as a means to achieve power. Whether conservative policies are successfully implemented is a minor concern. Take (please) No Child Left Behind. He still likes to talk about it as if it were a marvelous achievement. But this NPR report says NCLB “has sweeping promises, irresponsible authority, and is more expensive than many school systems can afford.” (Hmm, sweeping promises, irresponsible authority, too expensive. The quintessential Bushie program.) Although he seems proud of his program, Bush has shown little interest in dealing with the problems and making the program work as promised. As long as NCLB is a useful rhetorical device for Bush, it’s a success as far as he’s concerned.

Bush is in trouble now because the social conservatives, finally, are catching on. Even Phyllis Schlaffly has figured this out. “Bush is building his own empire without regard for the conservative movement or the party.”

Many argue (e.g., Frank Rich; sorry about the subscription wall) that Bush’s recent bumblings came about because he’s been drinking his own Kool-Aid, and because he is isolated from anyone but his closest, and pathologically loyal, advisers. Yes, but the boy never showed any keen interest in governing even when all of Washington was groveling at his feet.

So to answer Jim Hoagland’s question, to what end? That’s easy. Bush is his own end. Everything else is small stuff, and he doesn’t sweat the small stuff.