What Happened to the Republican Ideologues?

Last Wednesday, Bush participated in a press conference which was among the most memorable in his time as President. When asked about the incongruity between Rumsfeld's resignation and his comments only a week earlier, he said in all seriousness, "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign." Certainly, we can all agree that campaigns shouldn't be about actual politics -- you know, ideas, beliefs, commitments. When asked about the conciliatory tone toward Democrats after repeatedly declaring that a victory for the Dems would be a victory for terrorists, the President responded, "What's changed today is the election's over. And the Democrats won."

For pundits, Bush's comments seemed to be a startling admission that his previous remarks had been lies. He had known all along that Rumsfeld was on the chopping block, while telling reporters that he was doing a "fantastic job" and would stay until 2009. Perhaps the most telling moment was when Bush was asked about Pelosi's very harsh words about him. The President replied, "I've been around politics a long time. I understand when campaigns end and when governing begins." In essence, Bush was saying that everyone lies during political campaigns and you can't take seriously anything politicians say to get elected.

Yet, in a deeper sense, Bush's remarks suggest that he really doesn't know when campaigning ends and governing begins. One of the political truisms since 9/11 is that the Bush Administration is unswervingly ideological, committed to policies regardless of their pragmatism or popular support (either domestic or international). But, the rhetorical about-face since the election indicates that maybe the Administration isn't nearly as ideological. What Bush is committed to is winning elections. In other words, all he knows how to do is to campaign. To the extent that Rove's base strategy and Bush's hardline language and policies were electorally successful, the Republicans were therefore ideological. When the approach no longer worked at vote-getting, the approach was changed. The last six years may have actually just been about branding, treating citizens like consumers and figuring out the best way to shape electoral preferences -- and in the process create a permanent Republican majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

If all this sounds distasteful, it should. Having bad ideologues run the government is certainly a grave problem. But, if those ideologues are actually genuinely committed to their position, at least it presents the possibility for debate and disagreement. What Bush's about-face indicates is something more subtle and perhaps more sinister. It's a vision of the citizen as purely a tool or instrument of campaign managers, and politics as indistinct from advertising any consumer good. For Bush, the substance of politics is literally just the campaign -- the sell. And as long as it works, virtually any brand (compassionate conservate, war-president, decider, neoconservative, social conservative, democratic revolutionary) fits the bill.

In a context where the only criticisms made of the Administration are pragmatic ones -- these guys are incompetent -- and Republican ideology is deployed cynically (gay marriage, war on terror, "stay the course" in Iraq), perhaps the Onion's recent headline offered the most telling critique: "Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections." Today, we've already begun talking about 2008. The Dems are moving to the center to win the next election, and Republicans are positioning themselves to re-take Congress. For both parties, politicians are products and ideology just a brand.