Mitt Romney is the Barack Obama of the Republican Party, and I mean that in the least complimentary, most insulting way imaginable.

But not the Obama of 2008. Heavens, no. There is no Republican equivalent of Obama ’08, just as there is no such thing as a “Change” election for the Republican Party. Their entire ideology is the desperate, hyperactive misfiring of a fallacious, whitewashed America dying its long-deserved death. It has already won everything it wants: falsely meritocratic capitalism, social inequality and austerity for the poor, all while tossing freebies to the rich.

But Barack Obama in his 2012 incarnation and the former governor Mitt Romney share a certain ideological frailty (or the perception thereof — perception is always more important.)

Republican primary voters think Romney is insufficiently conservative, despite how far he’s followed his party on its wholesale shift to the even-farther right. There is a shared burning desire within his base to nominate a caustic and scathing conservative, but that bloodlust is neutralized by the specter of electability. Conservative voters resort to Romney in a half-hearted, purely strategic move. I’ve heard it called “Romneysignation.”

And Obama, faced with the sickening reality of working the Washington machine and actually trying to govern a country, turned out to be a fizzling disappointment for progressives overcoming the hangover after his 2008 campaign. They were sick and tired of President George W. Bush and needed a bold new hero, but look what they got.

This year is no different than any other when it comes to voters’ thirst for a raw, polarized contest of ideologies — may the best ideas win. But in a democracy, the contest of ideologies is always secondary to the contest for votes.

The truth is, Romney’s goal is NOT to be the gutsiest conservative candidate possible. His goal is to win the election. And Obama’s goal is not to be the leftist savior that his supporters dream about. His goal is, you know, to win the election.

There’s a word for this. It starts with a “P” and ends with “–olitics.” Office has to be earned before it’s exercised.

Voters on both sides feel trapped, and the resulting dissonance draws the uncomfortable parallel between Obama and Romney.

The 2012 presidential election will be a contest of ideologies in a rhetorical sense only. The campaigns will be selling different moral world views, and I wrote last week that the salesmanship will certainly be convincing. But from a strict policy standpoint, this race is a disappointing juxtaposition of a haplessly centrist Obama and an opportunistic shape-shifter, an accusation interchangeable between both Romney and Newt Gingrich, as both seem willing to say just about anything to get a boost in the polls. Their shared 180-degree flop on health insurance mandates is a perfect case-in-point.

I believe this dissonant malaise is finite, however. The right’s overblown hatred of Obama is stronger than its hesitations about Mitt Romney, and I wrote last week that progressives won’t be able to resist Obama when he finally reanimates. I don’t believe that each new year is always an exception to an old rule, so I expect the adage to remain true that after the primaries, Democrats fall in love and Republicans get in line.

I’m going to enjoy the malaise while it lasts, though. Any national sentiment that feeds Gingrich’s ego and cushions him in the polls is fine by me. A vulnerable Romney welcomes a vulgar Gingrich, and a vulgar Gingrich creates uncertainty in the primary. And uncertain Republican primaries are unfailingly hilarious.

But we laugh to keep from crying.