I think the rational definition of Deep State is just the government “lifers” who stay in significant spheres of influence for most of their career. I.e. key defense, intelligence, financial, etc positions.
The problem is that "Deep State" is a loaded term. You could very well argue that the N-word is a historically accurate (and Latin) way to describe African Americans.
Instead of using "Deep State", it might be better to say "Agency Directors", if you wanted to use neutral language. "Deep State" is loaded. Of course, its more popular these days to value-signal which side of an argument you're on, rather than appearing neutral...
In any effect, the people who use the word "Deep State" wish to imply that government workers have their own agendas. In my experience however, government workers overwhelmingly just want to do a good job with the task they've been assigned (much like any other human who are tasked with a job).
Why is it offensive. What is the word for the color black in Spanish? Does the color black have a negative connotation? Or did racist cultural attitudes turn what was a neutral term in to a highly charged weapon of oppression.
I think the OPs point was “deep state” has a deliberate, highly charged, negative connotation.
Don’t conflate the horrible reality of racism with the historical origin of a racial insult. The OP is merely using it as an example to illustrate how terms acquire meaning through time and social norms. Not excuse their existence.
The N word is simply the Latin word for black. It was probably used a lot by Latin, and maybe medieval age scholars to describe lots of things in a non-racist way. The issue is that MODERN racists have decided that the N-word is an insult to a subset of the community. As such, the N-word has become an insult.
My point is that words have meaning based on who uses the word. The N-word is used by racists and is now avoided by polite society (unless you wish to explicitly label yourself a racist)
"Deep State" is used by conspiracy theorists who wish to destroy government workers and their positions. Its a phrase that should be avoided unless you wish to paint yourself a conspiracy theorist.
So you don’t have to play ball in order to be cycled from public sector to private sector to high level government positions along with the attendant corporate lobbying to Congress on approving various government positions?
It’s a pipeline and someone has their hands on the valves.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate?
For instance, in Washington DC there is certainly a pipeline from public to private to high level to lobbying to etc., but I think what the +parent posters is referring to encompasses the scientists at the EPA and the USDA, the doctors and nurses and managers at the VA, etc etc. They tend to get a job there after a bit of moving around and then stay 40 years. There is no trading out to private sector -- they generally get a gov't job because of a combined desire for altruism and good benefits and stability -- and the vast majority would never even be offered, much less accept, a lobbying position.
Source: family in such positions, who just want to examine and regulate the wastewater output of cheese factories in the heartland and go home after a good day's work. Said member was forced out of their job recently due to politics -- not "business-friendly" enough.
It has a totally different meaning, but one that makes it much more common ('no but', iirc), so I had quite a surprise arriving at a Mandarin lesson one day!
It's a term meant to slander professionals and imply that we should constantly rotate in the current political favorites into positions for which they are not qualified.
What exactly are you asserting? I get that you're reiterating the Trump talking point about "Deep State" nonsense, but the majority of people in this nation have voted for Democratic candidates in the last several elections, including both 2016 and 2018. If anything, the electoral college and gerrymandering are what dampen the will of the people.
The outcome of the electoral college is de facto the will of the people.
Similarly, any unelected bureaucrat working in the executive branch that pursues their personal agenda or tries to slow progress on the plans of the duly elected executive is de facto going against said will of the people.
So let’s get what you’re saying: the will of the people is reflected in the person who got less votes winning, because of archaic rules created by ancient oligarchs?
That is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.
agree or disagree with the actual existence, but this definition ignores politically active people in politically important and politically connected non-governmental institutions e.g. media, finance, think tanks, unions, etc, which i think is implied by at least some when using this term..
"Deep state" is a conspiracy theorist level term for some underground, underhanded Hoover/FBI style group that doesn't exist or is really just career officials, most of whom have left the administration especially the state department. This has left a massive shortage in expertise and qualified or cleared workers slowing down how the government can handle ongoing processes/projects and new issues like the many foreign policy blunders and embarrassments Trump and his often unqualified appointees have made.
The trade war is one such blunder that no responsible and informed person thought would do any good long term but was spun as a hard core negotiation tactic. Tariffs are import taxes charged mostly to residents and businesses in the home country or passed to the consumer by the importing firm. This short term harms everyone but could be the straw that pushes a close deal to be ratified. Unfortunately, we didn't have a close deal beyond the TPP and this wasn't a cooperative negotiation but one of necessity framed as USA vs China.
It was never a smart move and was recommended against by nearly all experts or those with experience in the matter and we have reached the logical conclusion of such policies to find that there is no deep state outside of conspiracy forums and our economic outlook and foreign policy is a dumpster fire as Trump is not rational but likely narcissistic and mislead or misinformed by his staff to ignore reality such as the looming economic crisis.
hell, or even just good ole 'institutionalism'. "Deep state" sure does imply conspiracies afoot, and it's hardly such a thing. really it's just plain ole bureaucracy
Yes, the US president is an economic imbecile, but $50 billion dollars in tariffs is a drop in the ocean of the $100 trillion global bond market.
This is a much, much bigger deal than US politics or a US trade war.
Interest rates are negative on $15 trillion worth of debt. All German government bonds have negative rates, all the way out to 30 years.
Policymakers don't like to say the word "deflation" out loud, because even talking about it could make it happen.
But when the economy softens, and central banks have no more ammunition left to stimulate the economy, deflation could be the terrifying result.
Negative long-term rates are what you would expect in a deflationary economy. And, yes, you can have a deflationary economy even while some prices are increasing.
Humans are susceptible to narratives and trends. Even if the total dollar amount is low if every business cuts spending by 10% “just to be careful in case things get bad” because they here a narrative that the trade war will reduce demand...their collective action will create a recession.
Bureaucracy does moderate the effects of political leaders in exactly the ways the markets expected. It's extreme to ascribe a "worldview," no less a "naive" one, and it's a failure to appreciate context that you'd cite Bill Moyers' usage of the term when most people here know we're talking about Breitbart's usage. They each describe very different processes, institutional actors, etc., and yes, Breitbart's usage is often coterminous with the administrative state. Bureaucracy.
You're right - I was responding to an imagined position in an unrelated / irrelevant political context, whereas a more careful reading makes it clear what we're discussing here is the moderating effects of bureaucracy.
My apologies for adding noise instead of considering contributions more carefully!
There is no such thing in the Constitution. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.“ Contrast France’s Constitution, where there is a President (Title II) separate from the Government (Title III). To the extent there is a civil service trying to be independent of the President, “deep stars” is a colorful but not altogether inaccurate term.
"For the purpose of this title—
(1) the “civil service” consists of all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services;"
That statute uses the term only as a descriptor for employment-related statutory provisions. It obviously cannot create an executive-branch "civil service" independent and autonomous from the President, when the Constitution expressly vests all executive power in the office of the President.
I imagine that what they meant to refer to is what we remember as "the bureaucracy" (the system of career policy-makers), but that term now has the connotations of inefficiency etc.
It's accurate. The Federal government in theory answers to the President or at least Congress. But the comment was discussing people in the government who work directly and quietly against government policy, to 'moderate' it. The notion of civil servants found many layers down the hierarchy who have their own agenda and ignore orders from the top is the notion of the deep state.
If you're a civil servant in a department, you've worked there for years, you know why things are done the way they are, you know the pitfalls and the edge cases, you know the stake holders etc, etc, etc.
Some politician gets elected on a pledge to, eg, change the side of the road people drive on. Simple right? Set a date for next month as the switch over date, send a letter telling everyone, simple.
Except lane markings need changing, signs need changing, and most of those aren't directly under your control. Insurers are up in arms because all the cars are set up for driving on one side of the road. Some disability group is sueing because a proper safety study wasn't done, engineers can't guarantee that going on the off ramps and off the on ramps is safe, because they were never designed for that and theres 10000 other assumptions that were made on the basis of driving on one side of the road that are now invalidated, and its your job to point that out to your new boss.
