A fantastic read on the so called 'Deep state' is "National Security and Double Government" [1] by Michael J. Glennon in the Harvard Law School National Security Journal.
Abstract:
"National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken.
Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy."
> This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory
It could also be explained by Obama and Bush sharing similar philosophies on the security state, and there's a lot of evidence that supports that. That's not to say that the agencies aren't problematic, but rather that elected officials have been mostly happy with what they're doing, and that this is the reason why they keep doing it.
Where there were differences in policy between the administrations, we did see a change - for instance, in the use of waterboarding. It's just that these differences weren't as numerous as many people assumed.
I remember an Econmist article about Obama before he took the reins that said that, whilst his outlook was different and his tactics might sometimes differ, the fact remained that he would continue to serve American interests and that would disappoint a lot of external observers.
However far apart they were (and they were pretty far apart), Bush and Obama mostly agreed about what the challenges facing the nation were. There's plenty of evidence that Trump doesn't share that common ground.
My understanding was that Iraq was less about real foreign policy and more about his dad's "unfinished business", hence all the nonsense surrounding legitimacy of invasion.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan[0] wrote a book called Secrecy. If I remember it correctly, I took away two main points:
* A highly valuable asset within government is information and thus workers are incentivized to hoard it and protect its value, including by classifying it and not sharing it (i.e., keeping secrets).
* Secrecy can lead to extraordinarily bad results. Instead of being exposed to open debate, the secret information or idea is restricted to a few insiders who lack diverse perspectives, can easily form an echo chamber, or who may be politically pressured or desirous to support the conclusion.
[0] Unusual career, if you don't know of him: Senator, PhD. and published sociologist, Ambassador to India and the UN, White House advisor on urban affairs. With his deep skills and experience in both research and government, few are more qualified to talk about these things.
Additionally, started out life working-class and was working as a longshoreman while attending CUNY; Ta-Nehisi Coates spent some time describing Moynihan's remarkable gifts in an interesting article for The Atlantic a few years ago[0].
I avoided praising him too much in order to avoid other questions, but since you bring it up: We should also remember his advocacy of some bad things, including some arguably discriminatory or at least condescending policies toward his black fellow citizens, and support of mass murderers in Indonesia and East Timor. (I'm not going into details, but people interested in him should look up the whole picture.)
Isn't this what we mean when we talk about democracies with "well established institutions". In other words, isn't it a feature not a bug? The public institutions wield power just like the press, the judiciary, the legislature etc. And policy that does not meet with a broad acceptance by all sections of society gets blocked one way or another.
There is no such thing as a "war institution". All the above institutions are meant as a check against Presidential power, all of whom operate in the open, whereas we're talking about a state within the state that only follows its own rules, gets to operate outside of the spotlight, and has unlimited power (can you imagine Trump explicitly criticizing the deep state? There's a reason he hasn't done that yet, you don't attack those more powerful than you).
> can you imagine Trump explicitly criticizing the deep state?
He has many times. As examples: He has openly and frequently attacked the intelligence community over their conclusions about Russian hacking and election interference. He said the military was doing a terrible job, IIRC, in the ISIS fight.
The President has explicitly disparaged individual judges and the Intelligence Community from his personal Twitter account. Does he need to say the phrase "deep state" to qualify under your guidelines?
Judges are not even remotely part of the deep state, and Trump never directly attacked the IC (do a Twitter search for "cia from:realdonaldtrump" and sort by Latest). The "Nazi Germany" just evokes a witch-hunt, and could refer to anybody.
Quote from that speech: "And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we [the Kennedy administration] intend to do it"
It's amazing how prescient he is of the mounting conflict between full transparency and full privacy and the battle over who should conform to one or the other.
I've also been reminded of Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
A hidden state that sets its own agenda and has its own politics defined by its own economic and power structure is definitely a bug. Because who controls that state? Usually it's run by the people for their own personal goals which usually includes profit and power, i.e. the CIA being a great example of a system that was growing in that direction but was impeded over time. Do you want tyranny like that having an undue influence on the government?
Key question is not, is there a "deep state". The question is this... does the deep state have US National interests at heart, or are they another special interest group pursuing their own interests. Several ways to tell:
- Where do/did suspected private sector "deep state" players invest? In the US or abroad.
- Whom do/did they lobby for or represent in the private sector.
- Who do they associate with.
The criticism in some circles is that suspected deep-state members are too close to certain countries (eg. Saudi Arabia).
There are criticisms leveled that suspected deep-state members are either compromised by foreign powers, or they have compromised US officials, and journalists.
I am all for accountability and an infrequent but meaningful shake-up and reset of political influence and power. But the realpolitik bottom-line is that intent and effectiveness matter more than process or accountability. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think John Podesta, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Soros or Facebook is the "deep state". What matters is the NET result on US national interests at home and abroad.
Who decides what the "national interests" are? Are there even such things?
One thing I know: the things politicians and talking heads in the media often bandy about as being "in the national interest" aren't things in my interest.
Things like waging war on countries that didn't attack the US. Or waging the War on Drugs. Or bailing out the banks. Or the US alliances with certain dictatorial states and human rights abusers. Fuck that. I'm not interested in that. I don't think these benefit the US either.
People bandy about the term "national interest" as if it's some kind of objective standard which we all agree on. But that completely ignores the many diverse and often conflicting interests of the hundreds of millions of people who are the citizens of the United States.
What these so-called "national interests" really are are the interests of those in power. That's why the things I say are in the national interest don't matter, but the things they say are in the national interest do.
So I'm not sure how useful it is to judge the actions of the "deep state" members by whether they're serving the "national interest". That's letting them make the rules to their own game.
Indeed - it's a term with a nebulous, vague and malleable definition that sounds good to people without any real specificity attached. That's why politicians and pundits love to use it.
Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.
The National Interest is pretty clearly defined each time the countries economic data is released. Because without acceptable employment, balanced trade, and a manageable budget you've got nothing. No money for social justice, for national defense, and no place for politicians to pay themselves and their friends ... except your savings account. So, the National Interest is easy to measure if focus on the foundation, not the fixtures.
Is there a reason you would mis-interpret that comment on purpose?
Obviously not. But the way it gets bandied around as if every politician speaks for everybody is something fairly unique to America. I've never heard a European leader (at least, not in recent times) speak out loud like that. And if they did it would make me cringe just the same.
Are you counting the UK as European? Because British prime ministers do this all the time. They get 55% of the house of commons on 40% of the vote and 25% of the electorate, and then proclaim "the people have spoken!".
Hm, never noticed that but I'll pay more attention. And yes, that is cringeworthy too.
The people have only spoken if a > 50% portion of those eligible to vote actually vote and all of them agree.
In that case you might make such a statement, and even then that leaves room for 49% (a) not to vote and (b) to disagree and whoever would make such a proclamation would have to qualify their statement to that effect. But it is of course so much easier to claim a mandate.
No, because it still implies that whoever speaks speaks for an absolute majority of the electorate (so > 50% of those eligible to vote, not those who actually voted).
Given how many people simply don't bother to vote such statements are simply not true.
No, this is not the key question. The entire point of democracy is to let the people choose their leaders and who they believe should have power. To accept unelected, unaccountable, and unofficial leaders as having power over that of the democratically elected branches is to welcome the death of democracy in America. The American people chose their leader, and now, for better or for worse, he has to be allowed to actually lead. To allow any other outcome is a complete subversion of the entire democratic process.
That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college. The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue. The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.
>That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college.
You don't think that during a congressman or president's term, they need to at least appear to have acted in the best interests of their constituents, or risk losing their next election? Doesn't this give the people some amount of power over the people they elect during their term?
>The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue.
Presidential candidates often include supreme court appointments in their campaign promises, and it's implicit that they'll fill other judiciary appointments with ones that align with their values. You don't think this is an example of elected officials being beholden to their constituents? If a president appointed to the supreme court a judge that didn't align with the values of his constituents, wouldn't it reflect poorly on him and his party?
>The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.
Right, well, how is having less transparency and accountability going to give more power to the public? Doesn't that just exacerbate the problem?
I don't see how that refutes my point. Most people will agree that we have a democratic process for a reason. The existence of institutions outside of the democratic process that have power over our democratically elected institutions undermines this. This has nothing to do with word semantics about what "democracy" means, or how that word applies to America.
It really depends on what leverage people outside the democratic process have on folks inside the process. If I can coerce government into actions the benefit me, actions destructive to the general welfare, then democratic process is deeply broken.
It doesn't matter who is prime minister, the government is always in power.
I think the quote is something like that, which is a slight at the UK civil service because even if you elect a different party, prime minister and ministers control is ultimately held by those who exercise it... which tends to be the civil service.
Another quote along those lines is this one:
Hacker: If there were a conflict of interests which side would the civil service really be on?
Bernard: The winning side, Prime Minister.
There is also Dana Priest's book, "Top Secret Nation"
That being said, I am not sure how much of this is an organized conspiracy vs. bureaucratic entrenchment of known and familiar practices, defending one's turf, prolonging employment, etc....sometimes these things take on lives of their own.
The real question I guess you are asking is whether the deep state has its own entirely separate objectives or even philosophical tenets and if so what are these.
Abstract:
"National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken.
Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy."
[1] http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...