Action or lack of action does not change the fact you’re an ideologue.

Certainly, Bush was asserting or carrying out his own set of political ideas (and worldview) or his own set of political/social theories. As a result, he is an ideologue—although he was asserting his ideas practically, he can be an ideologue.

A theory can be tested, and his theories failed, so his ideas fail. Furthermore, I’m not sure if he would be considered a pure neoconservative, but he did work around aggressive neoconservative ideologues.

Bush certainly operated by a specific set of political principles, and he was certainly uncompromising.

I guess what I wanted to say is that the dogmatism of Bush, or the way he stuck to his political ideas and beliefs certainly makes him an ideologue—(the annoying and dangerous kind).

I think Joe Scarborough is throwing the word “ideologue” around too lightly. Undoubtedly, he has his own set of political ideas or beliefs, so if Stewart is an ideologue, then Scarborough most certainly is, so it seems ridiculous to accuse Stewart of being an ideologue when Scarborough is most certainly one himself.

I think the word “ideologue” can be used to emphasize those who take a more dogmatic approach at imposing their agenda, ideas, or political/social theories. I don’t know Jon Stewart, but I still wouldn’t associate Stewart with blindly asserting ideas. He seems like a reasonable man and willing to look at evidence objectively to formulate his ideas.

Bush was not reasonable, and he did not consider the complexities of society or the environment (he viewed the world very narrowly).

However, I guess liberalism has its own set of political goals as well, but I think liberals take a better approach at decision making than today’s Republicans (e.g., considering all types of ideas, scientific evidence, attitudes towards climate change or minority rights . . .).