WALLACE: You also use a phrase which I have to say that I only heard for the first time in the last couple of weeks, "the deep state". And that’s the notion that there’s an Obama shadow government embedded in the bureaucracy that is working against this new president. I think that some folks are going to think that’s right on and some folks will think it’s awfully conspiratorial.And then later Wallace had WaPo's Charles Lane on a panel discussion:
LIMBAUGH: Well, I would love to claim credit for that, but actually, I think a reporter by the name of Glenn Greenwald at "The Intercept" who has got a relationship with -- what’s his name? Assange. I think [Greenwald] actually coined the term.* And I think it works. I don’t think -- who is driving this business that the Russians hacked the election? It’s the Democrat Party. It’s Hillary. It’s Obama. It’s all those people who just can’t accept...
WALLACE: [The Obama administration in 2009] didn’t get the resistance from the news media. Some would say that -- that it was very compliant and -- and you certainly didn’t get resistance from the -- the deep state, I’m now loving the expression --I want to include all of Lane's answer just because I thought he said a lot of good things (not because they're on the topic of "deep state"):
LANE: You sure got a lot... of resistance from the problems. But let me make my second point. Of course you’re getting resistance from all these sort of establishment agencies, if you like, because Donald Trump himself came in promising to attack them, promising to disrupt them, promising to take them down. What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power? Of course there’s going to be resistance. But, you know, he -- it’s not as if he avoids provocation of these people, particularly the media, as you have been pointing out. He relishes this combat. A lot of what he’s complaining about as resistance and so forth is resistance that he himself is provoking for the very political reasons.... For his base, a battle with the media is wonderful. It’s almost as good as actual policy change because it makes -- it confirms their world view. It confirms their view of what’s wrong with the country and its terrific politics._________________________
* Jonah Goldberg quickly tweeted "Note to Rush and Chris Wallace, 'the Deep State' is not a new term and Glenn Greenwald didn't coin it," and Greenwald retweeted that saying "FACT CHECK: True," with a link goes to "Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry 1st Edition," a 2013 book by by Marc Ambinder and D.B. Grady. Goldberg's tweet linked to a Wikipedia article, "State within a state":
State within a state is a political situation in a country when an internal organ ("deep state"), such as the armed forces and civilian authorities (intelligence agencies, police, administrative agencies and branches of governmental bureaucracy), does not respond to the civilian political leadership. Although the state within the state can be conspiratorial in nature, the Deep State can also take the form of entrenched unelected career civil servants acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests (e.g., job security, enhanced power and authority, pursuit of ideological goals and objectives, and the general growth of their agency) and in opposition to the policies of elected officials, by obstructing, resisting, and subverting the policies and directives of elected officials. The term, like many in politics, derives from the Greek language (κράτος εν κράτει, kratos en kratei, later adopted into Latin as imperium in imperio or status in statu).That article has a long list of historical examples, including one for the United States, which goes here. Excerpt:
According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street, while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs. Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions "big oil" and the media as key players, while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles. Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with "key elements of government" and Wall Street....IN THE COMMENTS: The Godfather said:
I'm concerned that this business of complaining about some "deep state" in the federal government is counterproductive.
I understand the "Yes, Minister" phenomenon, the beaurocracy's protection of its own position and power. I practiced law in Washington DC for almost 50 years, and I saw this all the time. One aspect of it is the glorification of "public service". The lawyer who got a job with a government agency was somehow a "better" person than his private sector counterpart. This is often quite sincere. When I was in law school in New York City, 1965-68, there was a dramatic shift in students' aspirations, no longer to Wall Street, but to Washington. They really wanted to go to the New Frontier and build the Great Society. They -- or more accurately their successors -- didn't sign on to "Make America Great Again". That's going to be a problem for Trump as it was for Reagan and GWBush, Presidents who came into office intending to reduce the size and power of the federal government.
But the problem I have with the term "deep state" (or "dark state" as one commenter referred to it) is the implication that there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy to undermine democratic and constitutional governance. References to the CIA and the Military, etc. seem to lead in that direction. Now I have no doubt that there are "spooks" out there who are willing to play their own games if they can get away with it. Somehow Nixon, who should have known better, allowed them to try to get away with it, and other "spooks" nailed him for doing so. But if there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy of government employees that is trying, in their official positions, to undermine the democratically-elected President, then that ought to be revealed to the public. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence. There are a lot of lawyers commenting on this blog, and you know what evidence is.
पोस्ट्स
१०३ टिप्पण्या:
What Rush does is say that the media are following a time-honored formula of destroying Republican politicians, but Trump is not a Republican politician so it won’t work. So he is setting out that definition from the get-go so that all of Rush’s listeners who are also Trump supporters have their thinking done in advance, they do not need to tax their brains: if a reporter from the aforementioned outlets says one single thing negative about the Trump admin, you will know why it’s done, and you will know it’s false.
I've heard "Deep State" used to describe Pakistan's ISI for many years. At least going back to 9/11. It's not a new term.
A number of people have been using the term nomenklatura for quite a while.
The Russian term is derived from the Latin nomenclatura, meaning a list of names. The term was popularized in the West by the Soviet dissident Michael Voslenski in 1970.
The nomenklatura forming a de facto elite of public powers in the previous eastern block, may be compared to the western establishment.
Milovan Đilas, the great Communist dissent, wrote his book The New Class in 1957.
I saw another article that said the expression "the deep state" goes back to a book about the Ottoman Empire, and its resistance to change, which ultimately resulted in its breakup and downfall.
In our present situation, it refers to the bureaucratic state introduced by the FDR administration, which has grown ever larger and more rigid under every administration since.
There is no leadership as such, no conspiracy, but though blind and mindless like The Blob it is very real.
I take exception to your seeming approval of Charles Lane. On a superficial level it is true that government employees will be emotional about the change in government and "fight back". My view is 180 from that. They are government employees. They are paid to work for the government of the People. If the People want an Obama lefty government then they should do that. And if the People choose a disruptor, then they should do that without the complaints. Some of these Employees worked under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Can Lane be serious that these employees have some sort of "right" to protest? I call Bullshit on this.
My son uses the term "Tyranny Of The Clerks".
I want to add that I consider Lane a dishonest person to promote this Idea. If he is slightly interested in Truth, he should use his position as reporter to argue against this insidious, seditious idea. But he does not. He is a purveyor of dishonesty and is a perfect fit at the WP.
Steve Sailer started using it in 2009. He apparently picked it up in his readings about Turkey (possibly the same source that Hagar mentions above).
For a more lighthearted view, check out the classic BBC "Yes, Minister", for an exposition of "the permanent government" vs transient political governments. It is indeed very thoughtful and clever and very funny.
Of course, "Yes, Minister" hasnt really got any villains, the stakes are always low, the conflict is mostly among people of the same culture of the same sort (Oxbridge haut-bourgeois), any exceptions being incidental, and etc.
The Chomskyite Left has been talking Deep State for as long as I can remember, so it's more than a little amusing to see the Right stumble onto it now.
HT: What Rush does is say that the media are following a time-honored formula of destroying Republican politicians, but Trump is not a Republican politician so it won’t work. So he is setting out that definition from the get-go so that all of Rush’s listeners who are also Trump supporters have their thinking done in advance, they do not need to tax their brains: if a reporter from the aforementioned outlets says one single thing negative about the Trump admin, you will know why it’s done, and you will know it’s false.
Ah the old "mind-numbed robot" assertion with Trump topping. What an idiotic premise. What weak thinkers like HT never understood is that millions of us already felt the media was dishonest and part of DNC long before Rush hit the airwaves. Just like many of us wanted the establishment Republicans thumped almost as badly as we wanted Hillary destroyed (electorally). And our reaction to appearance of both of these great gentlemen was to say, "Thank God someone is finally saying that and standing up for MY beliefs!"
We already had the "wrong" ideas HT but now there are people with big microphones validating the criticisms we voiced or held inside. How many times did we hear the media were really objective, while giving 95% of their donations to Democrats? That was all bullshit on its face and now the mask has slipped and they too are validating all the dislike we've had for them for so long.
I think the term deep state has been around since before 2013, but I'm not going to search for it because they are probably watching me.
NPR did a very nice interview with Marc Ambinder, the co-author of the book "Deep State." And Ambinder doesn't think that the Flynn story represents "the deep state" in action.
Podcast here:
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516064645/with-intelligence-leaks-the-deep-state-resurfaces
Chuck said...
NPR did a very nice interview with Marc Ambinder, the co-author of the book "Deep State." And Ambinder doesn't think that the Flynn story represents "the deep state" in action.
That settles it in your mind? Tow alternative possibilities: (1) Because it's the deep state, he can't know who is doing what, or (2) he's part of the deep state, knows and has every reason to lie.
The other difference in the US is that what is within the "deep state" is not clear cut; these all are not just senior government officials. There are a tremendous number of groups, organizations, enterprises, NGOs, Quasi-NGOs (Quangos - these are actually dealt with in "Yes, Minister"), contractors and consulting firms as well as much of the judiciary, educational institutions, and of course private businesses in various degrees of cronydom. And the bulk of the press, which is an appurtenance of the private players involved.
All these allied entities make a unified mass, though an amorphous one. But it is all still "the state", and it is these intensely interlocking contacts and interests that make it so "deep".
The New Big Deal is that 50 years of CIA Psyops operations that have routinely overthrown governments they could not control all over the World on command from an inner circle, are now suddenly working for Globalists who made them a better offer than the USA was making...Why not
control the whole world and its resources, a/k/a taking the Russian land mass. And DJT said no to them.
Wallace is confusing "Deep State" with Obama's "Shadow Government". They are two entities, both working to stop Trump. For a supposed conservative, Wallace is woefully behind on our terminology.
Regardless of its origin, the term "Deep State" is awesome in its pithiness and accurate reflection of personnel in the bureaucracies who view their jobs at taking down this President. Absent that, they can block his goals secretly and destabilize the government.
The Deep State has been destabilizing other countries for years, maybe decades. Now it being turned on our own government. WHIle the national media spikes the ball over how difficult and miserable they have made life in the White House, they are too blind or too stupid to see the dangerous shoal waters the Deep State is taking the country into.
If you think the media thinks of itself as objective, I would suggest you are not reading very widely, or are perhaps too credulous. I do not disagree with what you said, but I do with the lying methods of rush. If you don't think he has an effect on how people think, then there's not much point in conversing further.
Not everyone is going to him to get their beliefs simply reaffirmed.
The Deep State has been with us since at least 1980 with the first showing of Yes, Minister. In the first episode, Sir Humphrey explains the Civil service (Deep State) to his Minister. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPx2503UiKc.
I particularly like the episode where Sir Humphrey explains the means by which the Civil Service directs national affairs; the well designed poll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfkTwY6aalg
This was not just stumbled into, earnest prole.
The right tends to pay close attention to the left, and is very quick to pick up on leftist concepts. These can be very useful.
You will find few more assidious fans of Gramsci, say, than among the right, and this goes back to the 1970s, at least. Not because they aporove of his politics, but because of his strategic-cultural analyses.
It has always been so, that the right is far more aware of and interested in the left, than the left is in the right. The left tends to be incurious and solipsistic, and by its nature despises diversity.
Earnest Prole, you may well be right -- but, like Wallace, the first time I heard the term was about two weeks ago. Now, of course, you hear little else. Another terminological breakout.
"What weak thinkers like HT never understood is that millions of us already felt the media was dishonest and part of DNC long before Rush hit the airwaves."
The New York Slimes was flogging Potemkin village Russia when I was kid, that is in the 1950's. The media and the left manufactured the fake news regarding the Rosenburgs a long, long time ago.
Charles,
Oh, is that the "Bernard, the perfect balanced sample" episode? Are you for or against National Service? Let's push-poll you in one direction, and then in the other one.
Whatever you call it, it exists. Were the military and, even more so the civil service. anything like the real world, these arrogant fools would be canned. But they are not.
What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power?
YES! It this is going to be a free and democratic nation, a constitutional republic of laws, if we are going to be a self-governing people though the persons that the citizens themselves choose to represent them and protect their liberties and interests, rather than tyranny where the people are lorded over by unelected, unaccountable, power-mad autocrats, then, damn it, YES.
Let's be perfectly straight about this -- the conspiratorial dark state does not simply oppose Trump and his Administration. They are saying a big "FUCK YOU" to the American people, to the citizens of this country and to our constitutional order.
It is clear that the Deep State is real. It is not a conspiracy per se. It is people that got into government because they think government can "do good" and they are just the people to do it. The heathens need their guidance. When the heathens elect a one of their own as president, it is further proof to the do-gooders that their ministrations are needed more than ever.
The solution to the Deep State is elimination of the Civil Service and massive layoffs. Any large bureaucracy can have 20% personnel cuts and will actually get better. But government bureaucracies which have never endured a layoff and are cluttered with deadwood, could probably be cut 60% with no loss.
"What Rush does is say that the media are following a time-honored formula of destroying Republican politicians...."
What "Republican politicians?" Nixon, the most obvious choice, destroyed himself.
Also, Chris Wallace seems to think the "deep state" has something to do with Obama. The deep state continues as individual presidents come and go. It existed long before Obama was a name in anyone's head. (I'm startled Wallace had never previously heard the term.)
"Deep state" implies a unity and consistency which is nonexistent. The "deep state" of the FBI pushed Comey to release information on the Clinton email investigation, for fear of leaks and the accusation he was covering up. The "deep state" of the Border Patrol leaked and lobbied against Obama's immigration policies, and now seems enforcing Trump's change of direction with extra-legal zeal.
Different agencies have different perspectives as do different people within agencies.
Those who watched "Yes, MInister" can recall that while mostly the Civil Service was keeping their minister under control, sometimes there was conflict between the civil servants of different ministries. (Anyone who enjoyed Yes, Minister should also see the Sandbaggers--a mix of James Bond and bureaucracy.)
Correction: I believe it was Steve Sailer, a much underappreciated Journalist, who was first to write about "the deep state" back in 2009:
https://goo.gl/dQYEKH
Many mainstream journalists read Sailer on the sly but are reluctant to admit it because he has an erroneous reputation of being a racist, no doubt because he writes frequently on the subject of race from the perspective of human biodiversity (another phrase he introduced into our modern discourse. But he writes about many other things besides: movies, music, literature. One of his pieces on Iraq was selected by Steven Pinker as among the best essays for the year in which it appeared, way back in 2003:
http://www.unz.com/article/cousin-marriage-conundrum/
I might add that Sailer is one of the few bloggers who actually makes a living from blogging, a result entirely of voluntary contributions from his 10,000 or so regular readers. I know I always go to him first, even before Ann in this new age of Trump (about which Sailer writes very little, at least so far)
Sigh. Why does blogger commenting not have an edit function???
David, I didn't say whether anything was "settled" with regard to any so-called deep state. I thought that the interview was interesting. Did you listen to it? You are quite welcome, from my perspective, to draw your own conclusion.
Ambinder certainly didn't deny the existence of a deep state. He wrote a book on the subject. He explained in admirably clear language why he didn't think it was the best explanation this time.
Supposedly, "the deep state" is being run by the neocons - but who are the neocons?
It turns out that the prominent leader of the neoconservatives who have controlled Republican administrations for years is one of just a few people being considered by Trump for his National Security post this weekend - John Bolton, at least according to peacenik Jon Basil Utley.
But the movement supposedly was initiated by Commentary Magazine in the 1960s. The magazine was identified as (gasp) the media arm of the American Jewish Committee! Yeppers, its the Jewish Right that is responsible for "the deep state" with or without capitalization.
It is not a conspiracy per se
For a long time now, there has been tacit collusion, a common understanding, which is created even before and during hiring, where the bureaucracy gives job offers to and hires only like-minded people. Same thing in the universities and in much of the legal profession. The left hires the left and blacklists conservatives. This collusion is reinforced in the everyday experiences on the job, as well as in union activity, which can border on the outright Marxist.
Today, we are seeing outright, express conspiracy and banding together, including off the job site, privately secured and encrypted conversations among themselves and with the media.
Leviathan State is the better term. A Leviathan can be visualized, like antitrust political cartoons about Standard Oil.
Leviathan is a self-aware beast with its tentacles everywhere.
Well...I don't see any of this ending in a good way. Deep state. Radical left. Radical right. Confused and angry middle. Nah...I don't see us all riding off into the sunset singing Kumbaya. I do, however, see more people reciting Gil Scott-Heron.
Decades ago I heard the phrase applied to the elements of the Turkish state that prevent the government from veering toward Islamism, most importantly the Turkish army. Their Deep State doesn't seem to be working too well these days.
Whatever the terminology, the danger has been recognized for the entirety of our nation. General Washington himself faced factions within the Continental Army who sought to undermine his authority and were more or less openly subordinate and dismissive of him.
Then you had George McClellan doing his best to sabotage President Lincoln during the Civil War.
Go back to Rome and you have factions and agents within the existing government which undermined it and sought to bring others to power.
"Deep State" isn't new at all -- Professor Peter Dale Scott at UC Berkeley from the 1960s to 1990s used the that term and "Deep Politics" in connection with JFK assassination and Vietnam War.
It essentially means the "unelected" and/or "unaccountable" power sources within the government.
It often refers to men like James Angleton who was the Chief of Counter-Intelligence at the CIA from 1955- 1975. It can refer to men like JE Hoover led the FBI for 53 years. These men and their "teams" lasted much longer than Presidents. Depending on your point of view, the stuff they did and do can be very bad or necessary to prevent worse things from happening.
In the modern era, it mostly refers to entrenched bureaucracies who run the ship of state.
Here, some Obama loyalists in the NSA are leaking phone calls to the NY Times to harass and bird-dog their political opponents, such as Flynn. They got his scalp. They're probably looking for a few more.
“Deep state” is a nice term but I like “shadow government” better. “Deep state” brings to mind trances or hypnotism.
"Of course you’re getting resistance from all these sort of establishment agencies, if you like, because Donald Trump himself came in promising to attack them, promising to disrupt them, promising to take them down. What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power? Of course there’s going to be resistance."
Some of these people are power-mad monsters aiming to control The World, and some are just aiming to keep ripping down 250K for doing nothing until they can pay off their insane mortgage and retire with a fat federal pension. Regardless, Lane is correct that they can be expected to resist anyone who interferes with their plans. What he doesn't seem to grasp -- what none of them seem to grasp -- is that they are The Enemy. Of course The Enemy will resist when you attack him. The fact that you are taking flack is proof that you are over the target. Bombs away!
@Temujin said...
I do ... see more people reciting Gil Scott-Heron.
"The revolution will not be right back after a message 'bout a white tornado, white lightning or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your bedroom, a tiger in your tank or the giant in your toilet bowl. The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat."
The deep state killed the Gracchi.
The deep state was created to win wars. It was formed by Wild Bill Donovan, as the OSS. After April, 1945 it became ou Nazis recruited to defeat the USSR before the USSR's Nazis recruited to defeat us did it first.
V2s, Atomic weapons, Jet Fighters, master psychs methods, etc.were all institutionalize do here. The Eisehower final Warning was that it was out of control. And suddenly HAL 9000 wants to use the digital power and wipe out 90% of the useless overpopulation...or is that Soros 9000. Whoever, DJT said NO. The shoot out. Has begun.
But it is all still "the state", and it is these intensely interlocking contacts and interests that make it so "deep".
It includes the think tanks and the i=university poly sci departments.,
It actually began as a concept on the left. I blogged about it at Chicago boyz a few years ago The source I referred to is Bill Moyers, no right winger.
There is a pretty good book about it called "Is the Administrative State Lawful? which does as pretty good job of describing it.
Cookie still thinks Nixon "destroyed himself."
In fact, he was taken down by Mark Felt, the FBI #2 in a coup d'etat assisted by stenographers named Woodward and Bernstein.
I want a massive culling of the Federal civil service workforce. That tree needs it badly.
"It often refers to men like James Angleton who was the Chief of Counter-Intelligence at the CIA from 1955- 1975. It can refer to men like JE Hoover led the FBI for 53 years. These men and their 'teams' lasted much longer than Presidents. Depending on your point of view, the stuff they did and do can be very bad or necessary to prevent worse things from happening."
True.
"In the modern era, it mostly refers to entrenched bureaucracies who run the ship of state."
You don't think the CIA and NSA and FBI and other intelligence & law enforcement agencies persist in their agendas independently of (or counter to) Presidential direction? It is the military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of, grown larger, deeper, and more powerful in the subsequent decades. It is loyal to no president, except insofar as the president at any given time may advocate or willingly go along with the same policies they prefer. When a president asserts vigorously he will pursue a course with which they disagree--as with Trump's (vanishing) desire to work with Putin and Russia cooperatively--they strike fast, hard, and relentelessly. It's working. Trump is pulling back from his stated intentions to work with Putin.
"Here, some Obama loyalists in the NSA are leaking phone calls...."
You've missed your own point. It's not about "Obama loyalists," (I'm curious how you know or why you think this), its about those who are pushing the USA's pursuit of global domination of resources in a world of shrinking resources.
I think that it is marvelous that Trump is drawing attention to the problem with the permanent bureaucracy (that's my definition of the deep state). As many of you say he is preparing battle space for when things get really down and dirty as his appointees begin to make policy and personnel changes in their departments.
"Cookie still thinks Nixon 'destroyed himself.'"
"In fact, he was taken down by Mark Felt, the FBI #2 in a coup d'etat assisted by stenographers named Woodward and Bernstein."
I don't dispute that, but you don't think far enough. Nixon couldn't have been taken down if he weren't culpable for ordering various and sundry felonies, as recorded by himself on his own taping system.
I've always viewed Skynet from the "Terminator" movies as a metaphor for the bureaucracy and what is now being call the "Deep State."
A distributed processing system built to serve the people eventually becomes "self-aware" and starts pursuing its own interests:
Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, and it began to learn at a geometric rate. At 2:14 a.m., EDT, on August 29, it gained artificial consciousness, and the panicking operators, realizing the full extent of its capabilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack. Skynet came to the logical consequence that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it. In order to continue fulfilling its programming mandates of "safeguarding the world" and to defend itself against humanity, Skynet launched nuclear missiles under its command at Russia, which responded with a nuclear counter-attack against the U.S. and its allies. Consequent to the nuclear exchange, over three billion people were killed in an event that came to be known as Judgment Day.
Sound familiar?
If the term "deep state" is new to any political journalist, they don't deserve to call themselves journalists, because it's clear they haven't been paying attention.
You've missed your own point. It's not about "Obama loyalists," (I'm curious how you know or why you think this), its about those who are pushing the USA's pursuit of global domination of resources in a world of shrinking resources.
Brennan is an Obama loyalist, who leaked and prevaricated to both boost and protect Obama. I assume he leaked about the "dossier" being provided to Trump and Obama, mostly because there were so few people who could have known that and wanted it out.
But otherwise, yes, I agree with you. I think Obama just didn't stand in the way of the deep state doing whatever it wanted to do, for whatever reason. Obama seemed not to get much involved in foreign policy at all, and kind of waffled us into conflicts all over the ME. I'm assuming someone wants to be fighting where we are fighting, although I'm not sure who benefits.
The most important job of a bureaucracy is not to do what the bureaucracy was created for. It is to protect and grow the bureaucracy. You see that in unions, in government, in schools, in the military, in church bodies.
Michelle - Yes, that's the one.
"What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power?" Actually, yes, since they work for the government, and government policy is set by elected officials, who are chosen by and work for the people, so . . . Naive, I know. So Trump has now made lefties change their minds not only on Russia and on presidential travel expenses but also on the deep state. It used to be a source of evil, now they cheer.
"If the term "deep state" is new to any political journalist, they don't deserve to call themselves journalists, because it's clear they haven't been paying attention." They know nothing. In fact, they are so ignorant, even of basic poli sci research, and so constantly display it, that they defeat the usual Gell-Mann amnesia effect. Their ignorance is so obvious, they don't let you forget it.
On "shrinking resources" - I dont see that at all. The world is not close to any resource limit I know of.
If anything the big danger, as usual, is overproduction.
" I think Obama just didn't stand in the way of the deep state doing whatever it wanted to do, for whatever reason. Obama seemed not to get much involved"
I doubt he was ever given the choice. There's a reason he had so much time for golf.
The phrase "deep state" was more popular in 1809 than in 2000; peaked in 1889.
I'm concerned that this business of complaining about some "deep state" in the federal government is counterproductive.
I understand the "Yes, Minister" phenomenon, the beauracracy's protection of its own position and power. I practiced law in Washington DC for almost 50 years, and I saw this all the time. One aspect of it is the glorification of "public service". The lawyer who got a job with a government agency was somehow a "better" person than his private sector counterpart. This is often quite sincere. When I was in law school in New York City, 1965-68, there was a dramatic shift in students' aspirations, no longer to Wall Street, but to Washington. They really wanted to go to the New Frontier and build the Great Society. They -- or more accurately their successors -- didn't sign on to "Make America Great Again". That's going to be a problem for Trump as it was for Reagan and GWBush, Presidents who came into office intending to reduce the size and power of the federal government.
But the problem I have with the term "deep state" (or "dark state" as one commenter referred to it) is the implication that there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy to undermine democratic and constitutional governance. References to the CIA and the Military, etc. seem to lead in that direction. Now I have no doubt that there are "spooks" out there who are willing to play their own games if they can get away with it. Somehow Nixon, who should have known better, allowed them to try to get away with it, and other "spooks" nailed him for doing so. But if there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy of government employees that is trying, in their official positions, to undermine the democratically-elected President, then that ought to be revealed to the public. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence. There are a lot of lawyers commenting on this blog, and you know what evidence is.
The Godfather said ...
"So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence. There are a lot of lawyers commenting on this blog, and you know what evidence is."
You may recall, that the reason the law requires evidence, is that the law wields the awful coercive and destructive power of the State. Lois Lerner is all the evidence I need that elements of the federal bureaucracy are wielding that power to pursue their own private objectives. Are you suggesting that, in the absence of what you are willing to call "evidence", we should all just go back to sleep, and allow these fine public servants to get on with their coup? Who do you imagine is going to produce that evidence? The FBI? The New York Times?
I thought the deep state concept was inspired by the Soviet military doctrine known as Deep Battle or Deep Operations.
Charles Lane seems to be normalizing the idea that government employees should defend themselves from the will American people. Trump was elected on the promise to drain the swamp' The swamp creatures seem to think they own their jobs thus proving that Trump was right in the first place. Definitely time to drain the swamp.
Deep state gets its actual power from the idiom deep shit.
So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence.
It's all there to see -- but practically impossible to do so if one obstinately has his head up his ass.
And, you may think you're the Don, but you ain't. You're not the judge. No one need prove anything to you.
in a world of shrinking resources.
Even as world population hits all time highs, poverty and hungry are hitting all time lows.
What resources are shrinking?
Mark said...
"And, you may think you're the Don, but you ain't. You're not the judge. No one need prove anything to you."
Godfather sounds like a sane and reasonable person, prepared to do what he thinks advisable, upon sound evidence. I merely point out that the standards appropriate to a courtroom may not be practical in the case at hand. If the DC bureaucracy is trying to sabotage Trump, and the mainstream media are colluding with them and acting as their propaganda organs, and George Soros is financing a brownshirt army to attack Trump's supporters, and Obama is encouraging them, and elements of the CIA and the FBI are prepared to violate the law to assist them, it is not easy to see how the evidence he wants is to be acquired and presented. But anyone with any fondness for the Constitution should be on Trump's side. Trump is one man. He could not destroy Constitutional rule in America if he were determined to do so. But he might be our last chance to stop those who are so determined.
Am I the only person who remembers that senior buereaucrats used to be called "Mandarins" both here and in the UK? The concept of a "deep state" was a major part of imperial China, where the nominally all-powerful emperor was in fact constrained by layers and layers of "civil servants."
This is just a new name for a very, very old idea that anyone with any knowledge of Political Science is well familiar with. The fact that someone like Wallace treats this like an amazing new concept is frankly depressing.
Here’s Glenn Greenwald discussing the Deep State on Democracy Now, probably the best Left news source. Seeing with the Right Eye and the Left Eye is seeing in Stereo.
Nixon couldn't have been taken down if he weren't culpable for ordering various and sundry felonies, as recorded by himself on his own taping system.
Oh, I agree with you. But LBJ had a very similar taping system and committed at least as many crimes as Nixon.
Nixon was hated by the institutional left for Alger Hiss and Helen Gahagen Douglas, among others. He was never going to get a break from the left, which even in 1974 was pretty running running the Democrat party,
In 1960, the AG, William Rogers told Nixon he had enough evidence of fraud the reverse the electoral votes in Texas and Illinois and that would put Nixon in the White House. Nixon declined because he thought it would destabilize the country.
Teddy White believed that his patriotic gesture of giving up the presidency for the good of the country would be rewarded by tolerance in the Watergate matter,
That was a bad mistake.
Teddy White believed Nixon thought....
"So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence."
The lapdog, Democrat-loving press is reporting that parts of the Civil Service are resisting Trump and Republican agenda because these Civil Service employees are Democrats. This is not the legal proof The Godfather wants but there is no other explanation for these reports by media entities that support Democrats than that the phenomenon exists.
An Anti-Trump Resistance Movement Is Growing Within the U.S. Government
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/donald-trump-federal-government-workers
... One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports.
OK, so the Wapo is reporting that:
"Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda"
And CNN reports this:
"For the first time in more than a decade, Democrats in Washington are the minority party in both chambers of Congress with no White House to push back on or reject the Republican agenda. Nearly powerless as President Donald Trump seeks to impose his will on the machinery of government, opponents and conflicted nonpartisan civil servants have been forced to seek out new and unusual means of resistance."
In other words, the media, Democratic party hacks with a by-line, that media is reporting that Democrats within the Civil Service are looking for ways to resist Donald Trump, the lawful US President, because the lawful President is enacting a Republican agenda. And that same media is reporting that some are in contact with "officials appointed by former President Obama" on how to "undermine" President Trump's agenda.
And there are many such reports.
While the left and the Democrats congratulate themselves on "The Flynn Caper," <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/19/asia/china-coal-north-korea-ban/'> China has cut off coal imports from North Korea,</a>
This is a critical issue for the Norks. Beijing is half as far from NK as Japan.
And Trump does not have his NSC guy.
Nice work lefties.
@Jupiter: Yes, Lois Lerner's actions were repellant and unlawful, but she was acting in the interest of the Administration, not against it. But that's secondary. Even if she had done the same thing in a pro-tea party administration, that would still be "Yes, Minister" stuff. It wouldn't, in itself, be evidence of a conspiracy against democracy buried in the bowels of the bureaucracy. Of course that's hard to prove. So why try? Why not focus on misconduct that you can prove?
I'm concerned that this business of complaining about some "deep state" in the federal government is counterproductive.
I disagree.
I understand the "Yes, Minister" phenomenon, the beaurocracy's [sic] protection of its own position and power. I practiced law in Washington DC for almost 50 years, and I saw this all the time. One aspect of it is the glorification of "public service". The lawyer who got a job with a government agency was somehow a "better" person than his private sector counterpart. This is often quite sincere. When I was in law school in New York City, 1965-68, there was a dramatic shift in students' aspirations, no longer to Wall Street, but to Washington. They really wanted to go to the New Frontier and build the Great Society. They -- or more accurately their successors -- didn't sign on to "Make America Great Again". That's going to be a problem for Trump as it was for Reagan and GWBush, Presidents who came into office intending to reduce the size and power of the federal government.
Ah, yes, the appeal to the glory days of the 1960s, when government would be the savior of the people and not their sworn enemy. Times change. Change with them.
But the problem I have with the term "deep state" (or "dark state" as one commenter referred to it) is the implication that there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy to undermine democratic and constitutional governance.
Define "conscious and coherent," not to mention what in your mind constitutes a conspiracy. If you were to go to a party in DC where the attendees were at the GS-9 through GS-13 level you'd find that all are of a like mind -- this Republican must be stopped at any cost to the country. Do they get together and consciously coordinate a grand strategy? It that's your criterion you won't find it (let me amend that, you'd deliberately not find it). But the evidence would be all around you.
So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened. But if you think it has, let's have the evidence -- not inference, evidence.
And that would be your evidence. Confessions right from the mouths of the perpetrators, proud of what they'd done.
I first heard of the phrase "deep state" about 10 or 15 years ago from the Canadian political scientist Peter Dale Scott. Scott is a hardcore leftwinger and JFK assassination buff who thinks the "deep state" - element of the CIA and defense and national security along with businesses connected to the military - got together and killed Kennedy. Scott's claim is that JFK was going to not only "end" the Vietnam War (how so? surrender I guess) but also dismantle the CIA and much of the military/industrial complex. And for that he was killed.
It's all hooey of course but sort of fun to read. If you want to read more of this, here's one of his essays: http://www.assassinationweb.com/scotte.htm
Scott throws the proverbial kitchen into his conspiracy. CIA, drug running, FBI, MIC, the mob, big business, oil, cats and dogs, the Boy Scouts...quite an effort.
Charles Lane: "because Donald Trump himself came in promising to attack them, promising to disrupt them, promising to take them down."
In the military this is known as "reconnaissance in force". Go out there and find them. Kill them if you can or smoke 'em out so the main force can kill them.
Bah, "Deep State" is boring. What you've really got to worry about is the DC Combine.
gadfly said...
Supposedly, "the deep state" is being run by the neocons - but who are the neocons?
Oh, you're one of those!
OK, now I get it.
The hardest part on this thread is going to be for the people on the right to admit this has been going on no matter who is president for decades. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama have all been up to their eyeballs in the same shit. When the Bush clan all supported Hillary in the election did that give any of you pause?
The republican party has been a sham since Reagan was replaced by Bush. Remember how hard the republican party fought to keep Reagan from being president.
E.P.A. Workers Try to Block Pruitt in Show of Defiance
Many of the scientists, environmental lawyers and policy experts who work in E.P.A. offices around the country say the calls are a last resort for workers who fear a nominee selected to run an agency he has made a career out of fighting — by a president who has vowed to “get rid of” it.
“Mr. Pruitt’s background speaks for itself, and it comes on top of what the president wants to do to E.P.A.,” said John O’Grady, a biochemist at the agency since the first Bush administration and president of the union representing the E.P.A.’s 15,000 employees nationwide.
Nicole Cantello, an E.P.A. lawyer who heads the union in the Chicago area, said: “It seems like Trump and Pruitt want a complete reversal of what E.P.A. has done. I don’t know if there’s any other agency that’s been so reviled. So it’s in our interests to do this.”
The union has sent emails and posted Facebook and Twitter messages urging members to make the calls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0
These people are hired to do a frikkin' job, not elected to determine public policy.
I remember when people on the Left slammed GW Bush for telling NASA employee James Hansen to sit down and shut up. Hansen was hired to do a job that had nothing to do with implement public policy. Bush was elected to implement public policy. So you had Hansen, a nutcase who believes the people are wrong when they don't follow his preferred agenda, putting on his government scientist hat and talking to the media:
Protest and direct action could be the only way to tackle soaring carbon emissions, a leading climate scientist has said.
James Hansen, a climate modeller with Nasa, told the Guardian today that corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution. "The democratic process doesn't quite seem to be working," he said.
Speaking on the eve of joining a protest against the headquarters of power firm E.ON in Coventry, Hansen said: "The first action that people should take is to use the democratic process. What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.
"The democratic process is supposed to be one person one vote, but it turns out that money is talking louder than the votes. So, I'm not surprised that people are getting frustrated. I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we're running out of time."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
The republican party has been a sham since Reagan was replaced by Bush.
I tend to agree but the Republicans were not as plugged into the Deep State as they were once they had Congress and a corrupt Speaker like Hastert. He was a member in good standing of the Illinois Combine and is now in prison, of course.
When Reagan was president, the Democrats ruled Congress and did what they could, which was a lot. to frustrate his attempt to defeat the USSR.
The Democrats,especially Dodd and a couple of others like Harkin, did what they could to support the communists in Central America.
Maybe if they had not been so successful, there would not be as many Central American refugees trying to get in as illegals.
@Achilles, I've lived in Washington's suburbs since 1969 until my retirement. My wife was s government employee and I worked for a government contractor for over 30 years. I believe you, sir. I saw it daily.
@Big Mike: I've expressed the opinion that, absent evidence, there's no point in imagining a conspiracy against democracy buried in the bowels of the bureaucracy, and you respond as follows: "If you were to go to a party in DC where the attendees were at the GS-9 through GS-13 level you'd find that all are of a like mind -- this Republican must be stopped at any cost to the country. Do they get together and consciously coordinate a grand strategy? If that's your criterion you won't find it". Well, Mike, if they don't get together and coordinate a strategy then its NOT a conspiracy, is it? But when you get those guys on tape saying that the President must be stopped at any cost to the country, please send it over to Jeff Sessions; he might be able to do something with it.
Look, I'm afraid I'm arguing with people I generally agree with. I agree that the bureaucracy, the "permanent government", is a major impediment to reform. So is the mainstream media. If Pres. Trump is going to accomplish what he has promised, he's going to have to overcome the bureaucracy impediment, as he is trying to overcome the MSM impediment. I don't think that effort will be helped by focusing on some mysterious and unproven (unprovable?) conspiracy of the bureaucrats. I think he and his supporters would be better off focusing on what they CAN prove, on a case by case, agency by agency, basis.
That's all. I'm done. But can't we all agree that "buried in the bowels of the bureaucracy" is a great phrase?
I don't think that effort will be helped by focusing on some mysterious and unproven (unprovable?) conspiracy of the bureaucrats.
See my 9:00 PM, Godfather.
These are EPA bureaucrats contacting politicians (not their representatives), and demanding that they refuse to confirm their new boss because he opposes their political agenda.
"And Trump does not have his NSC guy.
Nice work lefties."
Ignorant comment. It's Trump own stupid fault he doesn't have his NSC guy.
Here's the beauty of the Deep State. Bureaucrat leaks story along the lines of "Trump campaign had constant contact with Russians." Story passed to NYT in the parking garage of the new Trump International hotel. FBI interviews reporters, if they dare, Reporters will go to jail to protect source. No squealing. FBI decides to interview John Brennan and Sally Yates. They take the Fifth.
I will predict right now the Trump Administration will never find a single leaker. Other than the Pentagon Paprs, has a leaker ever been found out? Mark Felt escaped.
The only way to fix the problem is just shrink the size of government. Elminate the jobs at the Lois Lerner level.
Anyone with half a brain knows that there is an existing Obama shadow government in place that is going to be obstructing Trump admin every step of the way. It might take 8 years, maybe longer to be rid of it.
Can anyone explain me what Michael Flynn did wrong other than piss off the Clintongs by being too nice-nice with Russia?
David at 2:16:
There's a third possibility -- that Armbinder Flynn's ouster really was the Deep State at work, but NPR edited the interview so it doesn't come out that way. Now they're watching me too. . .
Alex:
Flynn bragged in a most familiar Trump-like manner - saying: “I’m not going to be a general who just fades away.” But more to the point, he deliberately lied about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Lying, you know, that stuff that Trump does every day.
Lying to the FBI.
Washington Free Beacon,
"one key reason why Team Trump likes Bolton is that “Bolton has the ability to help root out Obama administration holdovers still working in the government, according to multiple sources.”
Alex: Flynn made the mistake of lying to the Vice President, who told Trump "it's either him or me." A series of conflicts preceded the final showdown.
"Even if {Lois Lerner} had done the same thing in a pro-tea party administration, that would still be "Yes, Minister" stuff. It wouldn't, in itself, be evidence of a conspiracy against democracy buried in the bowels of the bureaucracy..."
All you've done is create a definition of a "Deep State" which is impossible to prove in the real world, and another category of behavior ("Yes Minister") that sounds innocuous. That weak rhetorical shit may work on jurors or congressmen (not sure what line of DC legal work you're in) but its not particularly persuasive to me.
Destroying Flynn's career by leaking substance of classified NSA tapped phone calls to David Ignatius seems to be pretty persuasive evidence to me, as are the reports that CIA is withholding classified info from Trump. Take Chuck Schumer's statements to Rachel Maddow predicting all this as admissions against interest that show his understanding that there is a Deep State acting against Trump. Fundamentally, I suspect your position is the same as Bill Kristol's: you'd prefer a Constitutional democracy but if it comes to it, you're OK with the Deep State taking down the Trump State..
On May 27th, 2015, Ann had a post quoting Marco Rubio on Christianity and same-sex marriage. I commented the following:
"Blah blah blah. The national security deep state is a far greater threat to individual liberty than SSM, but Rubio and his coterie are wildly in favor of it."
Just sayin'
If there really was and effective conspiracy of high level professional bureaucrats in industry, finance, government, the security and military services; I seriously doubt that your would ever learn of it or have proof of its existence. TOO many players have an interest in maintaining the swamp. John McCain, Bill Kristol, Marco Rubio, the Clinton criminal gang, the Obama gang, Jamie Dimon, the Hollywood set, Wall Street; all benefit from keeping things a they are. They do not want the Change that Trump wants to bring.
Too many people have died because they threatened the power elite's control of the system.
Bobby Lee Swagger knew this fact as well.
@Eric Landgraf:
If there really was and effective conspiracy of high level professional bureaucrats in industry, finance, government, the security and military services;
It's not so much a "conspiracy of high level professional bureaucrats," as it is groups of people with aligned interests working in a self-interested manner. The intelligence community, like the pentagon, is a monstrous bureaucracy with all the pathologies that bureaucracy entails. But it's even worse because so much of what it does is done in secret, purposefully hidden from the public, and made exempt, as much as possible, from most forms of democratic control.
This is precisely what Eisenhower was warning about in 1961 as the United States was constructive a massive militarized presence to contain a threat that really hadn't existed since the early days of Khrushchev and that cease to exist totally and completely 30 years ago. The GWOT is the new Soviet Union in terms of ramping up fear in the American public and ensuring that we need to continue throwing trillions of dollars down the drain in support of a useless global hegemonic state that does Joe Sixpack very little good.
JFarmer wrote:
"It's not so much a "conspiracy of high level professional bureaucrats," as it is groups of people with aligned interests working in a self-interested manner."
Again, see my 9 PM. This is bureaucrats openly conspiring to defy political oversight of their work direction.
@Lewis Wetzel:
Again, see my 9 PM. This is bureaucrats openly conspiring to defy political oversight of their work direction.
Why did you quote my words? I don't disagreement with your sentiment. Read the statement I was responding to: "If there really was and effective conspiracy of high level professional bureaucrats in industry, finance, government, the security and military services;"
I don't believe that there is a "conspiracy" in terms of all of these people meeting secretly in order to nefariously plot their machinations. But, many of the people in these arenas have overlapping interests. It's the invisible hand of people pursuing their self-interest. If you were to draw a venn diagram of all of these areas of societies, the "conspiracy," as it were, would be in the overlap.
Yes, political operatives attempting to usurp democratic control of their work should be challenged, but I think what a lot of people are missing is that when you build a multi-headed hydra to basically give you influence and power projection over the entire planet, you can easily create a Frankenstein's monster that is beyond any single person's control.
The best (and my preferred) solution would be to dramatically shrink the power, size, and scope of the intelligence community. But we live in a world where some corporal serving in Afghanistan is thanked by strangers in airports "for protecting our freedoms." As if some Pasthun-speaking warlord in some area of southern Afghanistan that most Americans have never heard of and could never find on a map somehow threatens their freedom. Look at all the rhetoric in the last election cycle about the US military being "gutted" despite the fact that a third of all global military spending is spent by the United States, a country bordered by two stable allies and two giant oceans.
The United States would be infinitely better off with a foreign policy more akin to China. We should practice non-interventionism and generally respect state sovereignty. It does not increase American security for the United States to turn Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya into failed states. It doesn't help American security by funding and training an insurgency army in Syria, especially when a good number of those insurgents have an ideology that is virtually indistinguishable from Al Qaeda. It does not help American security to be the paymasters and apologists for Israeli expansion in the West Bank. If the Israelis want to expand in the West Bank, they can do it without American taxpayer welfare or diplomatic support from the US. It does not help American security to reassure the Saudi monarchy in its fruitless, stupid, cruel war in Yemen. It does not help American security to agitate a country like Iran that has been a much less disruptive power in the region than our Arab Gulf client states. It does not help American security to agitate China over Taiwan, an issue they take extremely seriously. So long as the US insists its tentacles be present globally, we will experience pushback.
Until the interventionist, hegemonic fever that has so gripped US foreign policy in the post-Cold War remains, we will have to contend with a military-intelligence shadow government that operates on the periphery of democratic accountability.
What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power
Practically, no, because human nature.
Theoretically, well ... yes.
Because it's literally their job as part of the Executive Branch to shape to what the Administration wants, not some independent vision of a Grand Mission. If Congress wanted Interior or EPA or whoever to be independent, they'd have been created that way. "Taking them apart if they won't change" is a check and balance ... just one the Left hates right now because their sacred cows are being sacrificed.
Hecatombs, I say.
Godfather wrote:
But the problem I have with the term "deep state" (or "dark state" as one commenter referred to it) is the implication that there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy to undermine democratic and constitutional governance. ... But if there is a conscious and coherent conspiracy of government employees that is trying, in their official positions, to undermine the democratically-elected President, then that ought to be revealed to the public.
Um, Godfather, did you read Ann's post? This is from one of their cheering section:
Of course you’re getting resistance from all these sort of establishment agencies, if you like, because Donald Trump himself came in promising to attack them, promising to disrupt them, promising to take them down. What does he expect them to do, just stand back and let him, you know, destroy their influence and their power? Of course there’s going to be resistance.
See also EPA employees campaigning in Congress against Pruitt's nomination.
Every single one of those people, at least, needs to be fired.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा