No higher goal?

"Politicians are not people who seek power in order to implement policies they think necessary. They are people who seek policies in order to attain power." — Evelyn Waugh

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has a review essay in The New York Review of Books (Cliffs Notes for the intellectual) in which he discusses two books that take an up-close look at President Bush and the entire Bush clan: Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty, and Ron Suskind and Paul O'Neill's The Price of Loyalty.

Krugman is famously outspoken in his criticism of the George W. Bush presidency, so it's not a big surprise that he agrees with the dismaying portrait presented by these two books:

… If [as Suskind/O'Neill argue] everything Bush and his officials do is political, what is that they want to do with their power?

Old-line Republicans that I know cling to the belief that the Machiavellianism is only temporary, that it's embraced in service to a higher goal. Once the 2004 election is over, they say Bush will show his true colors as an idealist, someone who genuinely believes in small government and free markets.

But if Phillips is right — and I think he is — there is no higher goal. Bush's motivations are dynastic — to secure his family's rightful place. While he may have some policy biases — like that "instinctive policy fealty" to the investment business — policy is basically there to serve the acquisition of power, and not the other way around.

According to people who observed him in Texas, Karl Rove is a devotee of Machiavelli, and particularly of The Prince. And as Phillips points out, "Twenty-first-century American readers of The Prince may feel that they have stumbled on a thinly disguised Bush White House political memo." For Machiavelli's book was all about how to gain and hold power, not about what to do with it.

President Bush had the opportunity on Sunday, during an hour-long interview on NBC's Meet the Press, to demonstrate that such doubters were wrong. He had the chance — multiple chances — to lay out a clear vision for why he wants to lead, not just that he wants to lead. Here is what he said:

RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.

RUSSERT: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?

BUSH: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.

And I look forward to a good campaign. I know exactly where I want to lead the country. I’ve shown the American people I can lead. I’ve shown the American people I can sit here in the Oval Office when times are tough and be steady and make good decisions, and I look forward to articulating what I want to do the next four years if I'm fortunate enough to be their president.

Your average beauty pageant contestant provides a more specific, more substantial, more relevant agenda than this. In fact, I believe at least part of the president's response — "the true strength of this country is in the hearts and souls of the American citizens" — was taken verbatim from a speech by America's representative in last spring's Miss NAFTA competition.