It certainly means something in context, seeing as virtually everyone in the civil service has been painted with this same brush regardless of whether the term's use is correct or not.
> "bureaucrat" doesn't mean anything
These two sentences appear to be contradictory.
Language is everything. Are they a government workers or are they a bureaucrats? Deep state operatives or public servants? All of these words could describe someone who works for 18F.
18F workers are public servants, some of the best in the government, but by calling them bureaucrats, it makes their work seem inefficient and their removal seem logical.
Accepting the word chosen for the conversation determines what actions are acceptable. Protestors or rioters? Freedom fighter or terrorist? Peacekeeper or occupying force? Security or surveillance? Whistleblower or leaker? Regulation or Red Tape? Tax or Theft? Patriot or nationalist? Socialism, Marxism, or communism?
Peace (justice) or peace (submission)? Woke (generational injustice) or woke (any leftist idea I don’t like)?
It's precisely because these words have exact meanings, that they are so insidious. Many end up becoming shibboleths, dividing us vs them.
There are companies, PR firms, private intelligence, and think tanks that A/B test words and ideas in order to create the right metaphorical context to get people to submit to a certain framing.
A good read on the general topic of control via metaphorical framing:
https://commonslibrary.org/frame-the-debate-insights-from-do...
"Bureaucrat" is always a pejorative for a professional person who works in a bureaucracy. It doesn't mean anything.