Ideologues in the White House

Pragmatism is sometimes called the only philosophy with American roots.
Wikipedia

Pragmatism is a school of philosophy which originated in the United States in the late 1800s. Pragmatism is characterized by the insistence on consequences, utility and practicality as vital components of truth. [...] Rather, pragmatism holds that it is only in the struggle of intelligent organisms with the surrounding environment that theories and data acquire significance. ...pragmatists argue that what should be taken as true is that which most contributes to the most human good over the longest course. In practice, this means that for pragmatists, theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices--i.e., that one should be able to make predictions and test them--and that ultimately the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry.

The old cliche "the proof is in the pudding" comes to mind. "I'm from Missouri, show me." These are American values, a viewpoint on the world that is practical and demonstrated by results, not by pretty concepts or logical arguments.
Ideologues have not faired well in this century of political America. The names of McGovern, Goldwater, both Eugene and Joseph McCarthy are names of ideological leaders fell largely because of their belief in ideas that had little historical basis in practical outcomes. Richard Nixon was basically a pragmatist, but his paranoia made him act in illegal ways when confronted with a challenge. Ronald Reagan on the surface appeared to an ideologue. I think his "success" was largely an artifact of the pragmatic advisors he had around him and his multiple approaches he had to every problem. The "scatter gun" approach appears, at least in the short run, effective.
George Dubya Bush is an ideologue. Some say he believes he is on a mission from God. Certainly, he doesn't respond very well to facts that call to question his assumptions. His strategists such as Rove are pragmatists. His foriegn policy has been driven by Neocon ideologues. Up until now, his spin meisters have enabled to continue acting out his disasterous agenda without being held accountable. That time now seems to be ending.
This week, the facade crumbles. Monday, an interview of Brent Scowcroft, a man from the GWH Bush Administration with broad credibility in Washington, is published in The New Yorker. Later this week Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is expected to indict Administration heavy-weights in the Plamegate investigation.
Here is a teaser from the Scowcroft interview. It pretty well documents the ideological roots of the Bush Administration Iraqi policy. Thanks to Brad Delong for the link.
The Washington Note Archives

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

[...]
Scowcroft said of Wolfowitz, "He's got a utopia out there. We're going to transform the Middle East, and then there won't be war anymore. He can make them democratic. He is a tough-minded idealist, but where he is truly an idealist is that he brushes away questions, says, 'It won't happen,' whereas I would say, 'It's likely to happen and therefore you can't take the chance.' Paul's idealism sweeps away doubts."


Wolfowitz, for his part, said to me, "It's absurdly unrealistic, demonstrably unrealistic, to ignore how strong the desire for freedom is." Scowcroft said that he is equally concerned about Wolfowitz's unwillingness to contemplate bad outcomes and Kagan's willingness to embrace them on principle. "What the realist fears is the consequences of idealism," he said. "The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful. If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse."


He added, "I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic about human nature."