What if "Deep State" really doesn't exist? (link)

[Its On A Slab]

Trump has long warned of a government 'deep state.' Now in power, he's under pressure to expose it

President Donald Trump has built a coalition by promising to demolish a so-called deep state that he claims is behind dark government conspiracies.

apnews.com

Bongino and Patel have already admitted that Epstein was a suicide, and that there was no evil govt plot in the assassination attempt on then-candidate Trump.

But it got the base all stirred up. So there is that.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

It's hard to define the deep state because there seem to be varying opinions of what it means. Here are a couple of articles that take differing approaches to the idea.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537/

Whether any of this means there is a deep state in America depends on your definition. Powerful bureaucrats with access to government secrets and trusted media friends certainly do try to influence presidents from the shadows. But in Washington, at least, their views and goals are not monolithic. And unlike their counterparts in the developing world, they do tend to execute the orders they’re given by the president, however grudgingly—and are committed to upholding the rule of law.

Yes, The Deep State Is Real — And Working To Undermine Our Nation

For those who doubt the existence of the so-called Deep State, recent unsettling news provides ample proof it exists. But can anything be done about it?

www.investors.com

Despite all the time and millions spent, there isn't a shred of evidence for collusion between Trump and the Russians. But there are boatloads of evidence suggesting "collusion" by Hillary Clinton with the Russians, the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department and the State Department.

Trump called the whole Russia investigation a "hoax" and said exposing it would be one of his "crowning achievements" as president. But it won't be enough merely to expose it. Once exposed, we should punish those who participated in the collusion conspiracy as far as the law will allow. After all, it's your democracy they're destroying.

I imagine that, like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Problem is, no one wants to look for it if the truth poses a threat to their preferred narrative.

 

[Tidewater]

Depends on how one defines the term. I do not believe there is some shadowy cabal controlling the government.
I do believe that there are a lot of civil servants in the government who might disagree with government policy and will use covert tactics (slowdowns on policy implementation, leaking policy documents to the media, etc.).
Since the dawn of the republic, at every change of administration, every single federal employee lost his job and the incoming president would select replacements. Every postmater in every village, every clerk, etc. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 changed that. Civil servants were to be selected on merit rather than political loyalty. In exchange, civil servants would not engage in partisan politic on the job, but would implement the policy of the political appointed supervisors.
This bargain has not held. For just one rather benign example, Sasha Vindman stated publicly, "The president violated American policy vis-a-vis Ukraine." Vindman got the relationship exactly wrong. The president does not violate US policy. He makes US policy. It is the duty of the National Security Council to implement that policy. If a civil servant (or Army officer) disagrees, he can present his objections in private, and if overruled, he may resign. I think Vindman's attitude displayed the attitude he had seen amongst his peers. Civil servants sometimes feel they know better than their politically-appointed supervisors and will fight the implementation of policies with which they disagree. There are probably a lot of civil servants in Washington who feel this way. If one defines the Deep State this way, then yes, it exists.
But some shadowy cabal controlling everything? No.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Depends on how one defines the term. I do not believe there is some shadowy cabal controlling the government.
I do believe that there are a lot of civil servants in the government who might disagree with government policy and will use covert tactics (slowdowns on policy implementation, leaking policy documents to the media, etc.).
Since the dawn of the republic, at every change of administration, every single federal employee lost his job and the incoming president would select replacements. Every postmater in every village, every clerk, etc. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 changed that. Civil servants were to be selected on merit rather than political loyalty. In exchange, civil servants would not engage in partisan politic on the job, but would implement the policy of the political appointed supervisors.
This bargain has not held. For just one rather benign example, Sasha Vindman stated publicly, "The president violated American policy vis-a-vis Ukraine." Vindman got the relationship exactly wrong. The president does not violate US policy. He makes US policy. It is the duty of the National Security Council to implement that policy. If a civil servant (or Army officer) disagrees, he can present his objections in private, and if overruled, he may resign. I think Vindman's attitude displayed the attitude he had seen amongst his peers. Civil servants sometimes feel they know better than their politically-appointed supervisors and will fight the implementation of policies with which they disagree. There are probably a lot of civil servants in Washington who feel this way. If one defines the Deep State this way, then yes, it exists.
But some shadowy cabal controlling everything? No.

I think as important as outright opposition is plain old inertia. In a battleship as big as the civil service, there are literally billions of "that's the way it's always been done." I think Musk was trying to disrupt that. Unfortunately, being a neophyte at government, he had no idea of the costs he was incurring. (A non-chainsaw approach wouldn't have been the fun he wanted.) In the end, I doubt he saved a penny...

 

[Tidewater]

I think as important as outright opposition is plain old inertia. In a battleship as big as the civil service, there are literally billions of "that's the way it's always been done." I think Musk was trying to disrupt that. Unfortunately, being a neophyte at government, he had no idea of the costs he was incurring. (A non-chainsaw approach wouldn't have been the fun he wanted.) In the end, I doubt he saved a penny...

I have experienced inertia as well in my Army career. Civil servants who disagree with a policy initiated by a military guy will just wait him out. Military folks always move on after a couple of years and civil servants remain.
As soon as DOGE took a chainsaw to a ministry, lobbyists went in right behind them and lobbied to restore the funding, so you are probably right.

 

[Bamaro]

Deep state exists only when it is convenient to complain about it for one's own purposes.

 

[JDCrimson]

Based on what I have seen lately, the Deep State was the only thing keeping this country from tearing itself apart...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Deep State is nothing but one of many in his pile of excuses as to why he can’t accomplish anything he says. It’s judges that rule against him even if he appointed the judge. It’s people who fail when he assigns them an impossible task. It’s 93% with him Liz Cheney standing on principle and suddenly being declared a Deep State operative.


There’s a psychosis involved. The real life Jim Garrison acted this way pursuing the JFK conspiracy. He would listen to anything no matter how ridiculous if it pointed away from Oswald. When some of the same people told him things he didn’t like, they were accused of being part of the conspiracy.

According to Ed Rollins - hired by Ross Perot as campaign co-chair - when Perot sent an underling to fire him, Rollins pointed out there are only 2 political parties and he was dead to the one he left and the one who didn’t want him when he joined Perot on principle, the underling told him that Perot thought Bush had sent Rollins to blow up his campaign and as Bush was once head of the CIA, he was able to put Rollins on a retainer for life so money wouldn’t be a problem, that “Bush knew how to do this.”

Or the warden at the end of Shawshank.
You SEE people like this. This one just happens to be President.

 

[dtgreg]

Depends on how one defines the term. I do not believe there is some shadowy cabal controlling the government.
I do believe that there are a lot of civil servants in the government who might disagree with government policy and will use covert tactics (slowdowns on policy implementation, leaking policy documents to the media, etc.).
Since the dawn of the republic, at every change of administration, every single federal employee lost his job and the incoming president would select replacements. Every postmater in every village, every clerk, etc. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 changed that. Civil servants were to be selected on merit rather than political loyalty. In exchange, civil servants would not engage in partisan politic on the job, but would implement the policy of the political appointed supervisors.
This bargain has not held. For just one rather benign example, Sasha Vindman stated publicly, "The president violated American policy vis-a-vis Ukraine." Vindman got the relationship exactly wrong. The president does not violate US policy. He makes US policy. It is the duty of the National Security Council to implement that policy. If a civil servant (or Army officer) disagrees, he can present his objections in private, and if overruled, he may resign. I think Vindman's attitude displayed the attitude he had seen amongst his peers. Civil servants sometimes feel they know better than their politically-appointed supervisors and will fight the implementation of policies with which they disagree. There are probably a lot of civil servants in Washington who feel this way. If one defines the Deep State this way, then yes, it exists.
But some shadowy cabal controlling everything? No.

I appreciate your historical knowledge and I obviously agree with the President making policy. I believe Vindman was operating from a mindset that was prevalent all through the 20th Century, especially from the FDR years through the Cold War. This was a time when most Americans and the two major Parties agreed on our basic survival as a nation and our foreign policy aims. One who is not well-versed in American History would be tempted to think this was all inevitable. It definitely was not.

During FDR's time, we had a NAZI fifth collumn bent on destroying us. Had FDR not been President, for good or ill, we probably never get involved against the Germans until it was too late to save England. There have always been Civil War Dead-Enders, especially here in the South (Birchers, Klan, etc.) who are collaborators and want to bring us down from within so they can rule over whatever is left. During the Cold War, the Russians had many True Believers and the excesses of Capitalism led many well-meaning but deluded people to do the work of Stalin here; not counting the amoral parasitic traitors who are always among us forever ready to sell us out to the highest bidder.

Those my age and I dare say, everyone alive have always known a country that was fairly united in its Foreign Policy allignment. This historical arc might seem to those of us born into it, inevitable. It most assuredly was not, but the Post WW2 generation has a hard time understanding this. We always had a common, existential enemy. Since 1990, this has changed. Or, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it appeared to. But China is still our rival if not a deadly enemy. Putin is dyed-in-the-wool KGB and wants to destroy us. Plus, we still have plenty of folks who are completely amoral/immoral here who really DO NOT LIKE the idea of treating all Americans equally. We also, like the rest of the world, suffer from a good portion of certifiable maniacs running around loose.

We are awakened to the reality that there just might be people who can get into power that MIGHT NOT AGREE that American values of Equality and Freedom should be our Foreign Policy or are even important.

As to the Deep State, I always ask people "Who is your boss?" My own answer to that question is "The one who signs my checks." Our Representatives do not work for us. We pay them a stipend (it's like money, but it's such a small amount that you can't call it money, so it's called a stipend"nod to Spinal Tap), which we call their salary. Their salary looks like plenty to us peasants but these folks apparently have to spend 30 hours a day on the phone begging Billionaires for money for their campaigns to get re-elected. That is, if they want to keep their jobs. These billionaires are the people they work for.

 

[lowend]

You SEE people like this. This one just happens to be President.

I'm white. I've only voted for a Democrat twice in my life -- once was for Bill Clinton in an elementary school mock election and the other was Walt Maddox for governor. I can't align with the Democrats based on my morality and I can no longer align with the Republicans based on my ethics. Trumpism has created multiple generations of white Americans now that are so whacked out on conspiracy theories, draining the swamp, and MAGA isolationism that we are going to be in trouble for quite a while after Trump's term is over.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm white. I've only voted for a Democrat twice in my life -- once was for Bill Clinton in an elementary school mock election and the other was Walt Maddox for governor. I can't align with the Democrats based on my morality and I can no longer align with the Republicans based on my ethics.

There's a time I would have said your views largely reflect mine on voting, but there are also two other overriding considerations:
1) the election IS binary (either Harris or Trump was going to be President)
2) viewing morality solely through the lens of abortion (note: not saying this is automatically what you're doing just to be fair) and ignoring humane treatment even of other people someone may not like seems to me to have a serious problem in application. I find many of the things Republicans passively look upon (white collar crime, killing of illegal immigrants just because they're here illegally, or the pardon of the J6 rioters whose sole asset was the candidate they supported) as problematic.

Trumpism has created multiple generations of white Americans now that are so whacked out on conspiracy theories, draining the swamp, and MAGA isolationism that we are going to be in trouble for quite a while after Trump's term is over.

Yeah, but the thing is these folks were always here.
Consider this story from the 1988 Republican primaries:

Bush was already thinking about how to unify the party for the fall. The Dole voters, he believed, would be on board: They were Republican regulars. The Pat Robertson brigades struck Bush as more problematic—they seemed more interested in ideology and theology than in political victory. Campaigning in Kingsport, Tennessee—a thoroughly Republican city in a state Reagan had carried twice—Bush encountered a stony-faced Robertson backer who refused to shake the vice president’s hand.

“Look, this is a political campaign,” Bush said to her. “We’ll be together when it’s over.” The woman was unmoved, and Bush, in the privacy of his diary, reflected:

Still, this staring, glaring ugly—there’s something terrible about those who carry it to extremes. They’re scary. They’re there for spooky, extraordinary right-winged reasons. They don’t care about Party. They don’t care about anything. They’re the excesses. They could be Nazis, they could be Communists, they could be whatever. In this case, they’re religious fanatics and they’re spooky. They will destroy this party if they’re permitted to take over. There is not enough of them, in my view, but this woman reminded me of my John Birch days in Houston. The lights go out and they pass out the ugly literature. Guilt by association. Nastiness. Ugliness. Believing the Trilateral Commission, the conspiratorial theories. And I couldn’t tell—it may not be fair to that one woman, but that’s the problem that Robertson brings to bear on the agenda.
(Jon Meacham, "Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush," 2015:242)

During the same campaign, this self-same Pat Robertson gave an interview to a South Carolina newspaper and said that the confession of sin by Jimmy Swaggart just 16 days before the Super Tuesday primaries was a conspiracy by the Bush campaign to tar Robertson as a "TV evangelist" and thus another Swaggart in order to ensure he won the primaries.

As far as "drain the swamp," I doubt Trump knows anything about that phrase except "well Ronald Reagan said it and in 2015 to win the GOP nomination, I have to quote Reagan." I doubt he knows anything beyond that. And it's worth noting that Reagan used the phrase on January 20, 1982 - exactly the hour of his first anniversary as President - and the context is completely different even if one wishes to say the meaning is the same:

"The American people understand that the damage of decades of waste, mismanagement, inflation, and economic decay will not vanish overnight. And I suspect they've also noticed that quite a few of the people shedding crocodile tears over our current economic plight and taking potshots at our recovery program are the very people who led us into this swamp in the first place. I know it isn't always easy. As the old saying goes, 'When you're up to your armpits in alligators, it's sometimes hard to remember that you're here to drain the swamp.'"

For Trump, it's a mantra, a vacancy, a cheer, a cliche, anything but anything of actual substance. I swear that way too many of his voters - online anyway - demonstrate nothing more than the ability to recite his phrases parrot-like as if they cover a multitude of meanings and avoid actually saying anything.

Fake news, drain the swamp, make America great again, that's just terrible - all every bit as vacuous and empty as he is.

But we will never recover. Ever. The next Democrat is going to use every single tool Trump used for their own agenda, and the very same libs who today whine and condemn it will justify it with "but what about Trump" (after spending the last decade lecturing us that whataboutism doesn't justify anything). That person will rule by executive order, suddenly remember how badly they want the filibuster abolished, act all on his (or her) own - and Reps will cry and Dems will cheer, both hypocritical in the process.

The next Republican - unless we luck into a Bush 41-type (and they don't exist now) - will attempt to out-Trump Trump.

But we will not recover. Ever.

 

[lowend]

There's a time I would have said your views largely reflect mine on voting, but there are also two other overriding considerations:

*snip*

But we will not recover. Ever.

I agree with everything you wrote and appreciate the bit about Bush, as I was just a kid back then. I consider myself more of a disappointed moderate now, who is extremely worried about the future my young kids are growing into. Our society is missing out on the context that storied like the Bush diary entry provides because of our increasing inability to consume anything other than 15 second reels. Like you said, we will never recover.

 

[Tidewater]

I appreciate your historical knowledge and I obviously agree with the President making policy. I believe Vindman was operating from a mindset that was prevalent all through the 20th Century, especially from the FDR years through the Cold War. This was a time when most Americans and the two major Parties agreed on our basic survival as a nation and our foreign policy aims. One who is not well-versed in American History would be tempted to think this was all inevitable. It definitley was not.

During FDR's time, we had a NAZI fifth collumn bent on destroying us. Had FDR not been President, for good or ill, we probably never get involved against the Germans until it was too late to save England. There have always been Civil War Dead-Enders, especially here in the South (Birchers, Klan, etc.) who are collaborators and want to bring us down from within so they can rule over whatever is left. During the Cold War, the Russians had many True Believers and the excesses of Capitalism led many well-meaning but deluded people to do the work of Stalin here; not counting the amoral parasitic traitors who are always among us forever ready to sell us out to the highest bidder.

Those my age and I dare say, everyone alive have always known a country that was fairly united in its Foreign Policy allignment. This historical arc might seem to those of us born into it, inevitable. It most assuredly was not, but the Post WW2 generation has a hard time understanding this. We always had a common, existential enemy. Since 1990, this has changed. Or, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it appeared to. But China is still our rival if not a deadly enemy. Putin is dyed-in-the-wool KGB and wants to destroy us. Plus, we still have plenty of folks who are completely amoral/immoral here who really DO NOT LIKE the idea of treating all Americans equally. We also, like the rest of the world, suffer from a good portion of certifiable maniacs running around loose.

We are awakened to the reality that there just might be people who can get into power that MIGHT NOT AGREE that American values of Equality and Freedom should be our Foreign Policy or are even important.

As to the Deep State, I always ask people "Who is your boss?" My own answer to that question is "The one who signs my checks." Our Representatives do not work for us. We pay them a stipend (it's like money, but it's such a small amount that you can't call it money, so its called a stipend"nod to Spinal Tap), which we call their salary. Their salary looks like plenty to us peasants but these folks apparently have to spend 30 hours a day on the phone begging Billionaires for money for their campaigns to get re-elected. That is, if they want to keep their jobs. These billionaires are the people they work for.

While in policy terms I agree with what Vindman was arguing for (continuing military aid to Ukraine), I disagree with how he went about it. We simply cannot have military officers undermining the president in public. Infinitely more important than what happens to Ukraine is the strict subordination of the US military to civilian authority. To undermine that is to take a step towards becoming a Latin American banana republic.
If I was president, I would have court martialed Vindman. I would have crushed him like a grape and ground his carcass into dust (metaphorically). As Harry Truman said, "You can disrespect Harry Truman, but you cannot disrespect the president of the United States." What Vindman did was so far out of line that the policy he was advocating pales in comparison.

 

[JDCrimson]

Are you basing your morality on the essence that Democrats are pro-choice? Im just trying understand why you view Democrats as immoral?

I would argue the Republicans ethics have pushed them into immorality as well. Gutting humanitarian aid so that wealthy donors can get a tax cut seems pretty immoral to me...

I'm white. I've only voted for a Democrat twice in my life -- once was for Bill Clinton in an elementary school mock election and the other was Walt Maddox for governor. I can't align with the Democrats based on my morality and I can no longer align with the Republicans based on my ethics. Trumpism has created multiple generations of white Americans now that are so whacked out on conspiracy theories, draining the swamp, and MAGA isolationism that we are going to be in trouble for quite a while after Trump's term is over.

 

[lowend]

Are you basing your morality on the essence that Democrats are pro-choice? Im just trying understand why you view Democrats as immoral?

I would argue the Republicans ethics have pushed them into immorality as well. Gutting humanitarian aid so that wealthy donors can get a tax cut seems pretty immoral to me...

I feel like my views are somewhere in between the two parties now and feel like neither can claim moral superiority. In fact, I think both parties are just as guilty and slimy as the other. Both sow seeds of division -- one uses race & gender, the other uses fear & hate.

I believe in traditional views on gender & sexuality, limited abortion (rape, incest, health of the mother), I believe people need easy and free access to contraception, I believe homeless & people on welfare that are physically and mentally capable need to earn their money through a WPA-style program, I don't believe in systemic racism, I believe that some communities have barriers to success that need to be broken down, I believe we need to fully fund our schools, I believe kids that can't be adopted out of the foster system need to have their post-secondary education paid for by the government, I believe in mandatory military service, I believe in fully funding law enforcement and freeing them to do their job, I do not believe in fully nationalized healthcare, I believe our healthcare system is broken, I believe that corporations should be held responsible for the things they do that hurt people and communities, I do not believe that our soldiers should be strewn across the globe, I believe we need to keep more of our money at home instead of handing it out around the globe, I believe we need term limits for all politicians in our country, I believe we need a nationalized election day where voting at all levels takes place on one election, I believe caps on election spending need to be lowered, and on and on and on.

Show me a politician that can address even half of those in a way that isn't pandering in the name of God or putting down someone else with juvenile name calling, and I might consider voting for them. Until someone steps up and represents themselves without being a race or gender baiter or hate-spewing fear-monger, I'm not casting a ballot for either choice.

 

[cbi1972]

I feel like my views are somewhere in between the two parties now and feel like neither can claim moral superiority. In fact, I think both parties are just as guilty and slimy as the other. Both sow seeds of division -- one uses race & gender, the other uses fear & hate.

I believe in traditional views on gender & sexuality, limited abortion (rape, incest, health of the mother), I believe people need easy and free access to contraception, I believe homeless & people on welfare that are physically and mentally capable need to earn their money through a WPA-style program, I don't believe in systemic racism, I believe that some communities have barriers to success that need to be broken down, I believe we need to fully fund our schools, I believe kids that can't be adopted out of the foster system need to have their post-secondary education paid for by the government, I believe in mandatory military service, I believe in fully funding law enforcement and freeing them to do their job, I do not believe in fully nationalized healthcare, I believe our healthcare system is broken, I believe that corporations should be held responsible for the things they do that hurt people and communities, I do not believe that our soldiers should be strewn across the globe, I believe we need to keep more of our money at home instead of handing it out around the globe, I believe we need term limits for all politicians in our country, I believe we need a nationalized election day where voting at all levels takes place on one election, I believe caps on election spending need to be lowered, and on and on and on.

Show me a politician that can address even half of those in a way that isn't pandering in the name of God or putting down someone else with juvenile name calling, and I might consider voting for them. Until someone steps up and represents themselves without being a race or gender baiter or hate-spewing fear-monger, I'm not casting a ballot for either choice.

My laundry list looks a little different, but the essence is the same for me.