Home / General / Enough with “the deep state”

Enough with “the deep state”

Comments
/
/
/
906 Views

I’ve been mildly confused and dismayed by the speed with which dark musings about “the deep state” have found their way into mainstream political conversation. I’ve been relieved of the need to write something about this by this excellent column by Rafael Khachaturian at Jacobin, which I heartily endorse. A few choice cuts, but read the whole thing, etc:

The deep state concept is harmful in two key ways.

First, invoking the deep state implies a misleading view of the state as a monolithic, unitary actor. While the deep state is usually said to be a network of individuals and agencies, it is assumed that these component parts are held together by a common will or mission (in this case, something like defending the “national interest” against Trumpism). This leads to a reification of the state as an autonomous and internally coherent force.

Yet modern capitalist states are more fragmented than they appear. First, they are composed of class fractions and coalitions that have frequently clashing interests and are motivated by short-term considerations. Often, these internal differences arise from the pressure exerted by various economic interests (such as the competition between the financial, manufacturing, and small business sectors).

In addition, these class forces are intersected by other factors, including the different social bases of support behind the major political parties (including voter cleavages based on urban versus rural interests, racial and gender attitudes, and “populist” appeal), the mass media’s role in shaping certain ideological narratives, and competing visions of foreign policy and geopolitical strategy.

….

The state–civil society binary is one of the fundamental bases of liberal political theory. But this distinction is largely a byproduct of the way that political power has represented itself, rather than a social fact.

Where the state ends and civil society begins has always been permeable and contested — in other words, subject to politics and political struggle. The state is not an entity standing over and above society, but instead one premised upon the social forces that bring it into being.

Loose talk of the “deep state” misses this crucial point, advancing instead a facile vision of institutionalized power that constitutes its own foundation, and is therefore opaque, mysterious, and beyond the reach of citizens.

This being Jacobin, the sociology of the state on offer here is a bit more singularly focused on class than I might have described it, but that doesn’t change the general picture here. Great piece, I wish I’d written it. More like this, please, Jacobin.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Nobdy

    People deeply want to believe that the adults are actually in charge and everything is okay. They don’t want to think that the orange buffoon and his coterie of nincompoops are actually in charge.

    We saw the same thing during the Republican primary where despite all the numbers saying Trump would win people were convinced that there was no way he could, the party decides, the elites won’t let it happen, yada yada.

    If daddy Reince couldn’t save us (and indeed he has now bent knee to CheetoGodKing and serves him) then the daddies in a bunker at the NSA will make sure things don’t get out of hand.

    I don’t really blame people for wanting to believe this. It’s pretty unsettling to think that Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world and is, in many ways, unconstrained in the use of that power.

    • AMK

      Yeah one would think that “President And Very Possibly FSB Agent Donald Trump” would be definitive proof that the “deep state” is a myth. The whole thing is really a perverse affirmation of democracy.

      • humanoid.panda

        One could also add that Trump kinda sorta won despite being heavily outspent..

      • Hells Littlest Angel

        But Trump was put into power by the Extra-Deep State (likely under the supervision of the Reverse Vampires).

        Really, I think there is a Deep State, but it’s more comparable to an autonomic nervous system than a conscious, controlling power. My autonomic nervous system will save me killing myself by holding my breath, but not by washing down a fistful of pills with a half-gallon of vodka. The Deep State will probably stop Trump from unleashing nuclear armageddon, but not from flushing our economy down the shitter.

        • humanoid.panda

          One could make the argument that the McMaster appointment and the new Muslim ban EO that’s about to be rolled out indicate a compromise of sorts: Trump will destroy a ton of things, but not the US alliance system or the concept of judicial review.

          • Hells Littlest Angel

            Trump will destroy whatever he can, but not whatever he can’t. I guess that’s a sort of compromise.

            • humanoid.panda

              Right- but the fact that McMaster and not Flynn is NSA indicates that what he can destory had been somewhat circumscribed.

  • LosGatosCA

    Funny, I misunderstood the ‘deep state’ to just be a pseudonym for the MIIC protecting the integrity of the government to ensure their power to keep conducting business no matter who happened to think they were in charge at any particular point in time.

    Silly me.

    I thought deep state actors were people like John J McCloy, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, James Woolsley, partnering with people like Howard Hughes to keep the complex rolling in the right direction.

    • DrDick

      Even that grossly overstates the unity of interests within the state apparatus. There are numerous divisions among those entities and competition for power and resources. The interservice rivalries among the military are a good example.

      • LosGatosCA

        Beg to differ, the MIIC is very good at ensuring its survival and getting more than fair share.

        That the jackals make mischief amongst themselves is a sideshow. They still end up picking over the carcass pretty well no matter who happens to be the alpha in the pack at any point in time.

        ETA – may see where I misstated my point – by integrity I meant contniuing viability to maintain order and disburse cash, nothing more.

      • Gizmo

        We’re about to get another example – all the reporting I’ve read of late is a reminder that the EPA is staffed top to bottom with career science and policy people who have spent entire careers trying to make the air and water cleaner. They will not be cooperative in tearing it all down.

        • humanoid.panda

          And this is the problem with the term: what you are describing is plain old bureaucracy, lovingly depicted in Yes Prime Minister. A good argument can be made that a liberal state cannot exist without such bureaucracy ,and transmuting it into some kind of threat is a terrible, terrible idea.

      • jayackroyd

        Representing the Deep State as some kind of unified collection of actors meeting in secret cabals and then dismissing the concept is something of a straw man strategy. The continuity of American foreign and security policy (up until now) rests on a commonly held framework regardless of administration. The last serious attempt to buck that framework was Carter–and the actors LosGatos refers to used mechanisms outside the state apparatus to freelance.

        • DrDick

          I think most of this reflects the institutional culture within particular departments, which are staffed by career professionals. For the most part these people know what they are doing and what works, though they are not always right. They act as a brake on more reckless political appointees. The insane clown show that is the Trump administration has them in lock down mode.

    • Murc

      My understanding matches this. I think?

      I understand “deep state” to mean “those parts of domestic and international governing institutions whose cultures, biases, and priorities are somewhat insulated from, and don’t respond quickly too, electoral politics, and which will act to defend and promulgate those cultures, biases, and priorities.”

      Nothing in there implies a monolith, or unity.

      • humanoid.panda

        Nah. What you are describing is Weberian democracy. The term “deep state” as originally developed, related to
        a) what the Russians call siloviki- those who have weapons
        and
        b) their allies within civil society.

        The utility of this term for Western democracies is limited.

        • MDrew

          I think you mean the utility of this concept for Western democracies is limited.

          We can adopt the term and apply it to concepts and structures that are real in our system.

          That’s pretty clearly what we have done.

      • djw

        See hp below.

        I think the current boomlet of the use of the term vacillates between three distinct conceptions: that track the actual genealogy of the concept a la HP, a fresh label for the older concept of the MIC a la LosGatos, and the less conspiratorial, more banal conception you identify. My objection to the latter is that it redescribes a banal, uncontroversial feature of modern administrative states in a manner designed to make it seem shadowy and sinister.

        • Murc

          My objection to the latter is that it redescribes a banal, uncontroversial feature of modern administrative states in a manner designed to make it seem shadowy and sinister.

          The thing is, there’s an enormous amount of overlap between what LosGatos describes and the banality I describe. I’m not sure they’re all that distinct, because when people talk about the MIC, they’re really just talking about a set of entrenched institutional biases and desires of specific state and quasi-state actors in a modern capitalist administrative state, are they not?

          Also… whether these things are shadowy and sinister depends on the specific context of them, doesn’t it? I mean, it’s all very well to say in the general case “this is very banal” but in the specific case of, say, the CIA (to pick a dysfunctional state actor off the top of my head) them defending their institutional desires and biases and structure actually was, and is, sinister and shadow as fuck.

          • djw

            Sure. Specific parts of the modern administrative state in and of itself has no clear normative valence.

        • MDrew

          It would be fascinating to see a comprehensive, accurate enumeration and description of all the state activities encompassed in the “feature” you so fluidly in one motion here declare “uncontroversial,” djw.

          • djw

            Well, below you characterize the key analytic insight of the concept thusly:

            Nobody is alleging that the U.S. deep state “controls events.” They’re saying that they perpetuate a certain amount of continuity in U.S. IC and to some extent military policy, policy doctrine, and policy response to events irrespective of U.S. electoral results.

            This is not some sort of new insight. That the nature and structure of the modern administrative state and administrative law is designed to, and succeeds in, “perpetuating a certain amount of continuity” across administrations is perhaps the most banal, widely understood insight observation one could possible make about it (and not just the IC part of it, of course).

            I wonder if you didn’t make the mistake of taking my characterization as “uncontroversial” as a synonym for “unobjectionable,” which would account for some of the confusion here. A good deal of it is objectionable, and should be objected to, and the concept of the deep state in current usage seems more likely to serve as a detriment than an aid in making those objections well. It shares too many assumptions the Epsteins and Hamburgers of the world.

            • Brien Jackson

              It’s also worth pointing out that a) much of this is a matter of sheer size. There’s simply too much that the U.S. state does on a day to day basis for it to be directed from the higher reaches of the political offices, b) we certainly haven’t demonstrated that the modern dynamic of career officials has been worse than the patronage system yet.

              • DrDick

                we certainly haven’t demonstrated that the modern dynamic of career officials has been worse than the patronage system yet.

                If anything, it is the reverse.

            • MDrew

              Well if you’re in such vehement agreement with this view of this aspect of government, then I’m not sure what your point is, because you seem to frame your overall point as objection of some kind.

              If “uncontroversial” means “obviously correct,” then I guess we can just agree that it’s a correct view and move on, right?

              I guess with the passing observation that the users of this term in the U.S. context didn’t literally figure out there there is a deep state this month, so they can’t claim to be advancing a new discovery, which they’re not? Cool, noted.

              • djw

                I wonder if you didn’t make the mistake of taking my characterization as “uncontroversial” as a synonym for “unobjectionable,” which would account for some of the confusion here. A good deal of it is objectionable, and should be objected to, and the concept of the deep state in current usage seems more likely to serve as a detriment than an aid in making those objections well. It shares too many assumptions the Epsteins and Hamburgers of the world.

                • MDrew

                  The concept is not the concept of the deep state in whatever its academic origin is. The concept is the one you’ve described as “uncontroversial.” We know that because it’s precisely from asking what is meant when the term “deep state” is invoked that you found out that it is that concept which you call uncontroversial.

                  The term that is being used for that here is now “deep state.” It’s a changed usage (somewhat), perhaps a misuse, from what the term originated to describe. But most of the users and hearers of it aren’t very familiar with those earlier or geographically removed structures to which it originally referred. They’re talking about what is here and now in this country, and we’re all roughly clear about what that is. I don’t see that it matters that much what term they use. And you haven’t made much of a case that it does.

    • humanoid.panda

      Funny, I misunderstood the ‘deep state’ to just be a pseudonym for the MIIC protecting the integrity of the government to ensure their power to keep conducting business no matter who happened to think they were in charge at any particular point in time.

      No. The term the “deep state” was developed to describe Turkey during the 1970s, where indeed shadowy networks of army, police and businessmen were ready to overthrow the state whenever either the left or islamists started to misbehave. Its use to describe the US is a recent bastardization, by liberals who for some reason decided that what the US needs is even more anti-statism. And now, it’s been bastardized even further by the alt-right, according to which we all are agents of the deep state.

      • DocAmazing

        It was indeed coined to describe Turkey in the 1970s; it was then used by researchers like Peter Dale Scott to describe the MIC as it existed under strong (and frankly evil) leaders like Allan Dulles. The intelligence community does not have the focus and the throw-weight that it did in the 1960s through the mid 1980s, but it’s still largely unaccountable and not installed democratically. Once again: elements of the NSA and the CIA are, at this moment, doing good work, but that should not cause people to overlook their breathtakingly awful histories.

        • humanoid.panda

          But it’s also worth mentioning that in some of the biggest controversies of the last 30 years, the debate about Soviet nukes and the Iraq War, the “deep state” professionals took sober views, and it were people installed via democratic (semi-democratic..) channels that led us astray.

          • DocAmazing

            This does not mean that we’ve had a withering-away of the deep state; remember, the people installed via democratic channels used deep state actors to sell their falsehoods. The deep state is no more monolithic than the elected/democratic state, and is riven by factional conflict. The CIA (for example) that tried to un-stovepipe the intelligence on the Iraq War is the same CIA that ran black sites and ghost planes and gave us the joys of Abu Ghraib.

            • humanoid.panda

              So, I think you just reproduced djw’s objection to the concept: if the deep state is made of various factions running various policies in conjunction with various factions in the “shallow state”, why use the term at all?

              • I suspect the implication is that the people in the “shallow state” can be easily replaced with a changing of electoral politics, while the people in the “deep state” cannot. This is certainly a wide-ranging set of people from the CIA to the EPA who are unlikely to have much if anything in common either ideologically or amongst their function in government, but I do think the term has legitimate use, even if it’s been warped from its original meaning. That said, I’ve heard terms I thought worked better for this purpose as well, such as “permanent civil service” and “institutional inertia”.

                • humanoid.panda

                  But see above: the original usage of the term “deep state” is sinister, whle the terms you just used are neutral or positive.

                • I didn’t say it was necessarily a good term, just that its current usage represents a useful concept to have a term for. The one thing I can say in its defence is that it’s short and punchy, but I agree that its etymology makes it sound sinister. On the other hand, I would also wager that probably 90% of the people using it don’t have a clue about its etymology, and it’s also true that the meaning of terms can change with common usage (does anyone use “soft” to mean “be quiet” anymore?). Still, I’d just as soon have it replaced with one of the other terms I mentioned, but I severely doubt my misgivings will ever amount to anything in the grand scheme of things. The term has already caught on and we’re probably stuck with it.

                • MDrew

                  Are we pretending not to remember the kinds of things the intelligence community has been involved in more often than it hasn’t over the last sixty years?

                  If there is a self-sustaining cadre of state administrators and operators perpetuating a policy regime like the that our actual operational intelligence services has sustained (this is not to say that it has been the worst in the world or among the worst), and if that cadre is largely insulated in its operations form the effects of electoral politics, why in the HELL shouldn’t we apply a term with sinister connotations to that?

                  Now if the objection is that :deep state” is meant to apply to particular structures in Russia/USSR, Turkey or etc., and this is misuse of the term, fair enough. That is essentially a strictly terminological argument. Because terms do get adopted and repurposed when they are useful, and that’s what has happened here. No one is saying that our structures are like those others with this usage. They’re using a descriptive, evocative term to describe structures they believe exist here.

                  Now, if you want to say that they’re conceptually wrong about what structures actually exist here, that is the more apt argument. But if the issue is that our structures are not like those where the term originated (or for which it was coined), …meh. That’s basically niggling over terminology.

                • The term as currently used encompasses the CIA and the EPA. What about the EPA could possibly be sinister, apart from putting a giant dome over Springfield?

                • MDrew

                  The term as currently used does not encompass the EPA. Who’s actually doing that out there? It’s pretty clearly being applied to the parts of the state that wield force notionally in defense of national security (internally & externally), especially the intelligence community and the (fairy newly integrated) covert-action and special-ops military commands (JSOC). You’re just taking advantage of a particular stab at a definition done somewhere by someone who took that part of the usage convention for granted (as we all should do if we’re discussing this in good faith, because that much is obvious).

                • The right wing fever swamps absolutely are using that definition, and I’m pretty sure it’s this usage the Jacobin piece is in response to. Any unelected government officials who have been resisting the shitgibbon are being redefined as “the deep state”, and this includes park rangers, the EPA, NASA, whomever. This concept certainly has nothing to do with what the term was invented to describe, but right-wingers are not particularly noted for using terms correctly.

                • MDrew

                  If that’s the usage we’re resisting, then fair enough, I’m with you.

                  I’m pretty sure that’s not Glenn Greenwald’s usage, and I’m also with him on that.

              • DocAmazing

                It’s useful to clarify the difference between overt and officially sanctioned actions, covert and officially sanctioned actions, and off-the-reservation noodlings involving a blend of taxpayer-funded and private/corporate actors. It’s useful to have a term to describe that organizational realm where organized crime, resource-extraction firms, mercenaries, intelligence professionals and law enforcement interact quasi- or illegally.

                • humanoid.panda

                  Yeah, but the problem is that literally no one is using the term “deep state” to describe that!

                • DocAmazing

                  No. Right-wing goofballs are not using the term “deep state” to describe that, much in the way that right-wing goofballs are not using the term “racism” to describe, y’know, racism. Plenty of authors, political researchers and people on the Left use the term quite accurately.

              • DrDick

                Agreed, which was my point upthread, as well.

            • Ronan

              Right, the deep state argument is specifically over what Michael glennon calls “the trumanite network”, careerists associated with the institutions set up by the national security act. By this argument foreign policy decision making has been removed from democratically elected institutions , and instead been taken over by elites within these unrepresentative beauracracies. The argument would be that although there is competition and disagreement across and within depts, that a lot of this is trivial enough ,and the overall grounding of US foreign policy remains remarkably static, as there’s broad agreement (whether for idelogical reasons or out of self interest) as to what the US foreign policy posture should be. (I don’t know to what extent this argument says much of interest,personally, but I thin it’s slightly different than the link gets at. My impression is that the argument is less about the implementation of policy, but the actual creation of long term strategic goals etc)

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                the people who created this “trumanite network” had lived through two world wars in less than thirty years, the second of which ended with the a-bomb. The institutions they created were with the intent of preventing a *third* world war- which, you know, we’ve managed to avoid for seventy years now. So not *all* bad

                • Ronan

                  I didn’t say anything about good or bad (regardless, I’m not sure to what extent these institutions explain the lack of a Third World War)

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  sorry, I kind of knew my comment wasn’t following yours very well

                  I don’t actually *know* the answer to that question myself- except that when there was a consensus to prevent another world war through various institutions we didn’t have one. Now that most of the people who waged the last one are dead so is that consensus dying. Which, I guess, is going to make not only the non-interventionist left but also the chaos-creating right happy. Remains to be seen how it works out for everyone else

                • Ronan

                  I don’t know how far this “deep state” stuff goes either tbh. But my understanding is that the analysts pushing it (and Michael glennon mentioned above isn’t a kook, afaik) would argue that it’s not just your usual story of beauracratic policy making, but something more specific explaining continuities across administrations in foreign and security policy (the tendency towards military intervention, continuation of intelligence operations etc) even when new administrations are genuinely opposed to said policies.
                  I guess to make this point you’d have to show this is more prevelant in FP than other policy areas(I don’t have the knowledge to say if this is the case, though perhaps nexon or farley would weigh in), or at least you’d have to show that elite beauracrats had more political powe in this area than other. (Or policy was less responsive to democratic control)
                  I tend to agree with your main pojnt. The National security act just looks to my like an upgrading and professionalising of institutions (and has similarities in other comparable countries) I don’t fully understand what the Counterfactual is where policy is run without this institutional background, or whether there are changes that could be made to fix these apparent flaws.

              • DrDick

                However, that sort of consensus extends far beyond the government. As we have seen for over 50 years, there has been a broad consensus among the foreign policy community on the general parameters, though not on the details. compare the foreign policies of Bush II and Obama for instance, or Johnson and Nixon.

        • Brien Jackson

          The thing is though, most of the breathtakingly awful stuff has occured when it had the backing of political leaders, not when the IC was operating in rogue fashion.

    • RonC

      OK what does MIIC mean? I am so fucking tired of acronyms.

      • Dennis Orphen

        Military Industrial Complex. I don’t know where the extra ‘I’ came from.

        • LosGatosCA

          Military/Intelligence Industrial Complex

          State department budget $50B

          Plus NSA, military itelligence warranting it’s own letter

          • LosGatosCA

            Can’t use the greater/lesser than signs in a comment.

            My point was that the annual budgets for the CIA, NSA, and military intelligence likely dwarf the State Dept budget.

            Warranting it’s own I in the acronym

  • DrDick

    I have to say that the notion of the “Deep State” never really resonated with me. Focusing just on the government, there are intense rivalries between various branches, as well as within the branches themselves. There is nothing remotely monolithic about the state apparatus.

    • David Allan Poe

      The “deep state” reminds me of what philosophers say about the anthropic principle, the idea that if a few mathematical constants were a little different humanity on Earth would not exist. In its weak form – that if those constants were different, we wouldn’t be here – it states a truth that is both sort of important and kind of trivial, and in its strong form – the mathematical underpinnings of the universe are by some unexplained mechanism designed to produce intelligent life – it’s hard to give it much credence.

      Similarly, the “deep state” in its weak form just describes a kind of institutional inertia – a bureaucracy will attempt to perpetuate itself and further its own internally determined goals – which is both true and not particularly interesting. The strong form – that there exists a whole lot of people so unified in purpose by some unexplained mechanism that they exert their power in such a way that they can both control events and go undetected – is pretty ridiculous, but admittedly sounds cool and lends itself better to exciting stories.

      • humanoid.panda

        As noted above, this term was invented in Turkey, where such networks did exist..

        • David Allan Poe

          Sure, it’s obvious that a group like this can exist, under specific circumstances and for specific people for a specific time, and that 1970s Turkey was a place where this happened.

          The idea as it’s migrated to modern American political thought seems to be that there is continuity and unity of purpose in the intelligence community from roughly the 1950s until now, and that these people, if not the primary drivers of political events, at least operate together (independently of the rest of the government) to keep those events within acceptable boundaries, and they alone decide what those boundaries are.

          Cool story, but I doubt it.

          • MDrew

            Not events, dear boy. Nobody is alleging that the U.S. deep state “controls events.” They’re saying that they perpetuate a certain amount of continuity in U.S. IC and to some extent military policy, policy doctrine, and policy response to events irrespective of U.S. electoral results.

            Cool story; I doubt it a little, but only a little.

  • Sly

    This has been getting on my nerves beyond just the fact that its something that appears to be uniting the paranoid right and left (kudos to Jacobin for publishing Khachaturian’s piece – I’m pleasantly surprised). It’s that even in the geopolitical sphere where the notion of the deep state originated, the Ottoman Empire and later Turkey, its still something of a controversial notion. Applying it to the United States for any reason necessitates a bizarre misreading of how state power here functions.

  • tsam

    I don’t think of a deep state as any sort of monolith, I think of the concept as institutional inertia. State has lots of long serving workers that know the hell of out their jobs and are absolutely critical to continuity between administrations. Same with Justice, CIA, NSA, and all the others. If there is such a thing as a deep state, it’s those people whose names you don’t know that are just plain professionals. They don’t have a lot of power, but they are capable of shaping what hits the cabinet members’ desks and ultimately the president’s ear. Thinking of them as a unified body, even within each department is kinda crazy. Thinking they want to or are capable of acting as a unified force is completely crazy.

    • Gizmo

      Career civil service is a profession. Everything I’ve read since the swearing in of Comb-over Calligula indicates that these people care deeply about public service the missions of their agencies.

    • David Allan Poe

      You obviously wrote this while I was typing my reply to Dr. Dick, so the fact that we both said pretty much exactly the same thing is purely a coincidence and not me ripping you off.

      There is no Deep Blog feeding me comments before they’re posted, in order to support the neoliberal $hillary hivemind that is the entire purpose of the LGM community.

      I did not receive a check from George Soros in the amount of $3.47 for my above comment, nor one in the amount of $2.88 for this one.

      Just so we’re clear.

      • tsam

        I DONT BELIEVE YOU.

        • David Allan Poe

          KEEP SAYING THAT (in public….)

      • joel hanes

        I did not receive a check from George Soros

        Probably an LDAP problem. Most things are.

        Navigate to Reset The Password For An Account I Don’t Understand and follow the normal procedure.

        • Redwood Rhiadra

          I actually clicked that link and laughed out loud. You got me.

        • tsam

          I HAVEN’T BEEN ROLLED IN SO LONG

          Well played.

  • Slothrop2

    What is it with you guys and the issue of “class”? You always have to qualify “class” as relegated to some sort of subset of social pathology. It’s another kind of identity politics. This is quite ridiculous. Stop being so ridiculous.

    • Murc

      What is it with you guys and the issue of “class”?

      The fact that, traditionally and currently, a lot of leftists are monomaniacally focused on it to the exclusion of many other equally important things.

      You always have to qualify “class” as relegated to some sort of subset of social pathology.

      The way that many “class, not race” people use the term is, in fact, some sort of social pathology.

      • Slothrop2

        Well, this is, in your case, a simple confusion between Universal & particular. The class-but-not-race thing is somewhat simpleminded. Class is the essential issue for anyone on the left. Class is not identity politics.

        • Abbey Bartlet

          Class is the essential issue for anyone on the left.

          K.

        • Murc

          Class is the essential issue for anyone on the left.

          No, it isn’t. There are a number of issues that are essential for leftism. Class is one of them. It is not the only one.

          Class is not identity politics.

          Yes, it is.

          • MDrew

            The problem is that it’s not clear that class is essential for everyone on the left right now. For many it certainly seems that class is of concern where it intersects with other dimensions of oppression, especially ones under heightened interest right now.

            I.e., class is of interest where it exacerbates the oppression experienced by a person who is of color, who is of a gender other than cis-male, who is an undocumented immigrant or the child thereof, etc., or because class oppression statistically correlates with those other elements of oppression. Class if of less interest where it is the only dimension of oppression.

            And that is is identity politics.

            • …That’s just not true. I don’t see any evidence that anyone on the left is more concerned with “identity politics” than class (insofar as such things can even be extricated from class – the fact that transgender people are vastly more likely to be unemployed than the general populace is no coincidence) unless you take such a broadly defined view of “the left” as to include people like Andrew Cuomo and Dianne Feinstein. It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and it’s possible to stand up for women’s rights, minority rights, and the rights of the poor at the same time. I don’t know a single person on the left who doesn’t consider poverty a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed. At the same time, recognising that a cis/het white dude with $10,000 to his name faces fewer obstacles than a black trans lesbian with the same amount to her name doesn’t make sometime not a leftist; it makes them in touch with reality. That doesn’t mean no one cares about the poor white dude.

              • MDrew

                No evidence that anyone on the left sees things this way?

                Well, we’ll just go on seeing the world differently until you change, then.

                Which is perfectly okay. Don’t change.

                • It depends what you mean by “this way”, because you started out saying one thing and finished saying another. If you mean “doesn’t care about poverty”, yes, I would say basically everyone on the left cares about poverty. That is pretty much required by the very definition of the term. Leftists are leftists because they believe leftist policies will best alleviate poverty. If they didn’t care about poverty, they wouldn’t be leftists. This seems as incontrovertible to me as saying “all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.” I mean, if you want to redefine words, say so.

                  You then took an absolutely bizarre left turn into saying that if someone thinks poverty is likely to affect a woman or minority more negatively than the same amount of poverty would affect a straight, cisgender white dude, that proves they don’t really care about class. Or something. I honestly don’t even comprehend what your stance is there because it’s so frankly illogical and out of touch with reality. Women and minorities absolutely do face more obstacles in society, which is why these issues are also class issues and the whole distinction of “identity politics” is dismissive of reality. Women are paid less than men for the same work. Queer people are way more likely to be unemployed. Poverty disproportionately affects minority populations as a direct result of policies directly designed to make it do so. And on and on. Apparently if we consider these to also be class issues, that means we don’t care about class, according to you. Who made you pope of leftism, anyway?

                  Anyway, yes, as long as you don’t actually consider people like Cuomo and Feinstein to be leftists, everyone on the left does care about class. Recognising that some poor people face more obstacles than others doesn’t mean that we don’t still care about the poor people who face fewer obstacles, because, as stated, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s possible for multiple things to be essential – because they are.

                • MDrew

                  I’m trying to read what I wrote in the way you read it with all the charity for your take I can muster, and I… I’m just not getting there.

                  I’m sorry.

                • I’m on my phone so this won’t be a complete exegesis right now. I may be able to provide one later.

                  You started out saying “it’s not clear that class is essential for everyone on the left right now”. Your justification for saying this is apparently that “Class if [sic] of less interest where it is the only dimension of oppression.” Because apparently if we recognise multiple degrees of oppression, one of them can’t be “essential”. Or something.

                  I don’t know what your actual intended meaning was, but your entire post was absurdly condescending and dismissive of anyone who recognises (correctly) that society oppresses people on multiple levels. You shouldn’t be surprised that I read it the way I did. Maybe next time try not telling people what they care about, or dismissing concerns that often literally threaten people’s lives as not being “essential”.

              • Brien Jackson

                And to add, at worst it’s equally true that plenty of “leftists” are rather dismissive of class issues that don’t disproportionately affect white men. The Clinton campaign was way out in front of Sanders on things like equal pay for women, childcare subsidies, health insurance price discrimination, birth control, etc. All of these are economic issues that disroportionately hit working class women….but they hardly ever get singled out as such, and are more likely to be sneered at as “identity politics” in many of these circles.

                When someone like slothrop talks about class, we all know what it means.

                • MDrew

                  You’re right about this, and thank you for identifying the way in which Hillary burdened down (politically) her message and program for the working class with a thick coat of identity politics over the top. This is exactly what happened, and it is so often denied here that hers was anything other than a straightforward class-politics appeal.

                  And then do you know what happened? She lost the election by losing -in the range of 4 to 8 percentage points off of Obama’s performance in several of the Democrats’ firewall states in the industrial Upper Midwest and interior East of the country.

            • Murc

              The problem is that it’s not clear that class is essential for everyone on the left right now.

              How is that not clear?

              Class if of less interest where it is the only dimension of oppression.

              Even if I accept this framing, you undercut yourself, because “less interest” doesn’t mean “no interest.”

              • Brien Jackson

                Two thoughts:

                1. Class gets “less interest” there because white working class men just generally aren’t all that welcoming to working with liberals/leftists right now. It’s hard to represent the interests of people who aren’t there in a short term political coalition.

                2. In terms of discussion, the problem for people who want to focus on class is, frankly, the number of white male lefties who can’t even hide that their desire to focus on class explicitly means wanting to minimize talk of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

                • DrDick

                  I will go a bit further on your point #1. This is a real thing and reflects the take over of the Democratic Party by the DLC in the 1990s, as represented by the Clinton Presidency. They quite deliberately shifted away from a strong pro-labor stance to a more corporate friendly one, while continuing strong on racial and gender equality (later including sexual orientation). These are not inherently oppositional categories and one can support all of them, as I do.

              • MDrew

                How is that not clear?

                I go on to explain that in the comment.

                Even if I accept this framing, you undercut yourself, because “less interest” doesn’t mean “no interest.”

                How does this undercut me? What do I need to claim “no interest” for? Is everything that you have any interest in essential to you? We agree there’s less interest, great. If it’s very slightly less, ok perhaps it’s still essential. If its way, way less, it’s clearly not (when not in the contexts I lay out). My claim was it’s not clear. But the behavior suggests the latter to me, not the former. But your mileage can vary.

                But more importantly, enough people saw it like I tend to see it in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere that Donald Trump is now president.

        • DAS

          Class politics sure the hell is identity politics, especially in a society where what you do for a living is a key part of your identity.

          What do you think “economic anxiety” is all about? It isn’t that Trump won the votes of that many people who are in economically dire straights. Those people voted for Clinton, if they were able to vote at all. Trump won the votes of people who felt entitled to a certain level of material comfort and economic security based on their class (and race). And many of us middle class folks simply cannot afford the middle class lifestyle to which we feel entitled.

          That’s economic anxiety, and it is about class being an identity. Why do we feel entitled? Because we are middle class. It’s part of our identity.

        • DrDick

          Speaking as a socialist who studies issues of race, ethnicity, and gender professionally, you are mistaken. Class is only one issue among many. Racial and gender hierarchies, as well as others, work independently of and interact with class hierarchies. None of these things can be reduced to any of the others. What they all do, however, is restrict access to wealth, power, prestige and other rewards in society to a small group.

    • Hob

      Stop being so ridiculous.

      You first.

      • Stop being so ridiculous

        .

        You first.

        But “ridiculous” is slothrop’s raison d’etre—you might say, his/her/its/their entire identity.

  • humanoid.panda

    At this point, the internet is awash with people arguing that the deep state just got Milo. That is to say that, just like “fake news”, it now means: “liberals who say things I dislike.”

    • Murc

      I refuse to yield useful terms to conservatives who bastardize them.

      • humanoid.panda

        As you can see from my other comments, I am deeply skeptical that this term is useful. And I think its endorsement by the left is indicative of an anti-statist seepage we’d better to avoid.

        • djw

          And I think its endorsement by the left is indicative of an anti-statist seepage we’d better to avoid.

          Indeed.

          And to clarify–some good leftist anti-statism is good, proper and necessary (I’ve contributed to it myself), but there’s a real imbalance this direction in contemporary leftism. When I say “more of this please Jacobin” I don’t just mean more stuff that’s actually good; I’m expressing my hope that at its best, Jacobin could bring left-intellectual thought into a better balance between anti-statism and statism.

          • humanoid.panda

            This might be my right wing social democratic bias, but I really struggle to see how leftist anti-statism is not a contradiction in terms. And yes, I know that anarchism is a venerable movement- but I kinda suspect the moment is seized power, it’d be forced to backtrack almost immediately.

            • Murc

              This might be my right wing social democratic bias, but I really struggle to see how leftist anti-statism is not a contradiction in terms.

              It isn’t if you’re simultaneously both a leftist and a liberal. Which I would argue is not only desirable, but necessary; liberalism lacks strong answers to collective problems that are grotesquely evil and need solving, and leftism has a strong authoritarian bent that both easily turns into rightism and doesn’t have a lot of room for individual freedom.

              • humanoid.panda

                The hidden presumption here is that you seem to think that liberalism necessitates anti-statism. I don’t think it’s true, at all.

                • Frankly, without a certain amount of scepticism of government authority, liberalism runs the risk of turning into one of the reactionaries’ favourite caricatures of it: a philosophy that seeks to control every aspect of its subjects’ daily lives. There are aspects where the state has no business intervening and is best letting consenting adults set their own standards. A particular example of an area where liberalism’s response to state overreach has been inadequate has been the prison-industrial complex and particularly its usage to imprison those who commit victimless crimes (with a strong racial bias, no less). It’s starting to get attention from liberals now, but without anti-statist strains amongst liberalism I question whether this would have happened, or whether the concerns would have remained limited to leftists and the few honest libertarians out there (Radley Balko has been diligently covering this beat for at least ten years). This is not merely limited to liberalism, but it is a pitfall I should hope liberals would wish to avoid.

                  (There are other areas where I consider liberalism to offer insufficient solutions – automation is one; anything less than basic income as a response will ultimately prove woefully inadequate for the continued functioning of liberal democracy – but that’s a rant for another time. And to be fair, basic income has not always been a uniquely leftist proposal, but leftists seem to be the only ones still making it with anything approaching the seriousness it’s going to need.)

                • Murc

                  The hidden presumption here is that you seem to think that liberalism necessitates anti-statism. I don’t think it’s true, at all.

                  I would submit that if it doesn’t have a large amount of anti-statism baked in, it can’t be called liberalism. The entire sine qua non of classical liberalism was carving out vast areas where before the state had presumed it had the right to intervene, sometimes forcefully, in peoples lives and say “no, fuck you, state, you’re not allowed to do that anymore, back the fuck off.”

                  I mean. The two foundational values of classical liberalism are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those are, especially in the context of the time liberalism was being developed, profoundly anti-state values. In the 18th century, the idea that the state didn’t have the right to criminalize or heavily regulate and oppress your speech and your worship was immensely radical.

                  Frankly, without a certain amount of scepticism of government authority, liberalism runs the risk of turning into one of the reactionaries’ favourite caricatures of it: a philosophy that seeks to control every aspect of its subjects’ daily lives.

                  This is more a failure of leftism than liberalism. Liberalism’s failures come from the other direction usually; too light a hand rather than too heavy a hand. Liberalism doesn’t have an answer for things like institutional racism; when confronted with things like restrictive covenants and redlining and sundown towns, it mutters something about “freedom of contract” and slinks away ashamed. It requires leftism to confront issues of that nature.

                  This is part of why you need both together. Separately, they’re fatally flawed.

                • I suppose it depends what sort of liberalism we’re talking about. Classical liberalism does usually trend towards too light a hand (which is probably one reason why there aren’t too many classical liberals these days – and the “libertarian” capitalists who try to claim the term as their own don’t qualify as classical liberals). Social liberalism might not always, depending upon its tendencies. I was mostly referring to social liberalism in my post, since that’s how the term is most commonly used here.

                  But yes, there is also a trend in modern liberals towards a wishy-washy, “eh, what can you do?” attitude, which doesn’t necessarily help anyone either. Still, sometimes that attitude is directed at examples of genuine government overreach, such as the prison-industrial complex example I mentioned, so I’m not really sure this makes scepticism of the state any less necessary for liberalism.

                  I agree that both liberalism and leftism are needed.

                • djw

                  Liberalism doesn’t have an answer for things like institutional racism; when confronted with things like restrictive covenants and redlining and sundown towns, it mutters something about “freedom of contract” and slinks away ashamed.

                  I’m curious how you’d classify the civil rights act! Not liberal?

                  This comment reduces liberalism to something of a caricature of a narrow version of its classical incarnation, erasing various 19th and 20th century debates and innovations. “Liberalism” has always been an evolving tradition, it wasn’t frozen in amber the moment Adam Smith noticed that commercial society and clearly defined alienable property rights were a good counterweight to certain forms of unjust, entrenched power.

                • DrDick

                  I would argue that modern liberalism is more statist, actually.

                • Murc

                  I’m curious how you’d classify the civil rights act! Not liberal?

                  Leftist AND liberal.

                  Classically understood, the Civil Rights Acts of both ’64 and ’68 are of course not liberal; they both represent major curtailments of the freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights. And they do that because people recognized (correctly!) that those rights as constituted and used in much of the US were being grotesquely used to perpetuate enormous injustice.

                  However, it still respects liberal values by restricting its regulation to the public sphere and trying to use as light a hand as possible. The CRA doesn’t prevent you from being super racist, from acting super racist, from refusing to associate with black people in your private life, and it wouldn’t censure you for doing any of the above. Thus it tries to respect liberal values.

                  “Liberalism” has always been an evolving tradition, it wasn’t frozen in amber the moment Adam Smith noticed that commercial society and clearly defined alienable property rights were a good counterweight to certain forms of unjust, entrenched power.

                  This is true, but… hmm.

                  It isn’t wrong to say that to most people, liberalism means something different now than it did two hundred some years ago. It’s become very muddied with leftism in many ways.

                  But an issue comes up when sharp cleavages emerge. Erik, for example, angrily denies being a liberal whenever it is implied. We have the whole ongoing “punch nazis!” “no, don’t punch nazis!” brouhaha, and I don’t think you can advocate the former (regardless of its merits or lack thereof) and still claim to be a liberal without rendering that term to be actually meaningless. That sort of thing.

                  I’m not sure that just tossing everything to the left of center and the right of Mao into a big bucket and saying “sure, this is all liberal stuff” is all that useful.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Liberalism doesn’t have an answer for things like institutional racism; when confronted with things like restrictive covenants and redlining and sundown towns, it mutters something about “freedom of contract” and slinks away ashamed.

                  This is silly. “Liberal” != “libertarian”, and as DJW says the Civil Rights Act was hardly the product of antiliberal leftists.

                • Murc

                  Well, let me ask, Scott; in your opinion, what are the cleavages between liberalism and leftism? What principles are necessary parts of one and not necessary parts of the other?

                  Because I’ve always thought that liberalism doesn’t really require addressing the relationships between non-state actors within itself. Conversely, I’ve always felt that leftism doesn’t require respect for individual rights and liberties within itself.

            • djw

              I really struggle to see how leftist anti-statism is not a contradiction in terms.

              Start here.

              A comprehensive anti-statist leftism as some sort of grand theory isn’t particularly useful, but anti-state leftist critique is necessary and valuable.

            • I would not exactly say that Anarchist Catalonia “backtracked”. Of course, it didn’t exist for long, either, for which we can thank Josef Stalin.

              (The Free Territory of Ukraine is another case of a case of genuine or at least incipient anarchy being stamped out by communists. At this point, I’ve pretty much given up hope of ever seeing a genuine example of anarchy in my lifetime, despite the fact that there are no communists, in any meaningful form of the word, with any meaningful form of power. To be fair, I don’t really expect that authoritarians of any other ideological inclinations would have much inclination to allow anarchy to stand, either.)

              Finally, I should point out that the reference to anarchism “seizing power” is… kind of quaint. I understand what’s meant there, but the whole point of anarchism is to eliminate power disparities between individuals to the furthest possible extent, so it sounds more than a bit strange.

              • humanoid.panda

                Right, its awkward, but the awkwardness is exactly why anarchy is a problematic population. Think about Makhno’s Ukraine: someone needed to secure the area, make sure that horse’s are fed and weapons are produced, that the ataman’s soldiers are not marauding, etc. And that requires some level of coercion, and some mechanisms of taxation and re-distribution. And voila! You have a state.

                • On my phone so can’t type out the long response I’d like, but it does seem like coercive elements in Catalonia may have been almost non-existent (see Orwell’s Homage to Catalonial and Makhno’s greatest uses of coercion seem to have been intended… to prevent coercive political forces from taking root in the Free Territory, ironically enough. Of course, with the huge amount of propaganda published about both… anti-states, for lack of a better term, it’s difficult to know for certain.

                  I will concede that defence is by far the biggest obstacle and the main reason I don’t expect to see anarchy in my lifetime. It’s also the primary reason Ursula K. Le Guin set the imperfect anarchy she depicts in The Dispossessed on a moon.

                  In any case, anti-authoritarian socialism remains a fundamental element of my philosophy, though the main one these days is defending the downtrodden (which means that in addition to socialist programs, I would welcome forcible government intervention to protect, say, immigrants who were being threatened by mob violence. To name one thing that could plausibly happen these days).

        • DrDick

          Agreed.

  • Nick never Nick

    I think that the ‘deep state’ is more useful as a concept to describe governments that have a strong pre-democratic tradition that retains substantial power when they become nominally representative: for example, Turkey or Thailand (military and aristocratic, respectively). Does it have to be secret? That I don’t know — in Thailand, for example, the deep state came out and destroyed Thaksin, who was very definitely nouveau state, but it did so quite openly, perhaps because he was so strong. I imagine finishing off Milo would be easier.

  • Linnaeus

    There was also a piece today in The Atlantic that made a very similar argument about the “deep state” concept as applied to the US, but it took a slightly different tack in that it used Erdogan in Turkey as an example of how an authoritarian could him- or herself fan the fears of a “deep state” to bolster his or her own power and enable repression rather than oppose it:

    The fact that the deep state in Turkey was known for lawlessness and criminality meant that it was disliked by a wide range of factions there, from liberals to the religious, more conservative factions that the military repeatedly slapped down as they gained power. That began to change with the rise of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan had previously been banned from government for violating rules against Islamist politics, but he returned in a more moderate guise, becoming prime minister in 2003. (He became president in 2014.) Erdogan learned to use the idea of deep state as a cudgel against it.

    “It became such common currency that it allowed Erdogan’s AKP government to cripple Turkey’s democratic checks and balances, including media and courts, many of whose members Erdogan connected to this alleged deep state and then locked up during a set of trials collectively known as Ergenekon,” said Cagaptay, who writes about Erdogan’s power grab in a forthcoming book The New Sultan.

  • Breadbaker

    From things I’ve seen on social media, “deep state” is becoming shorthand for “civil servants continuing to do their jobs after January 20 when they don’t realize they lost the election.” Essentially, there are a lot of Trump voters who have exactly no understanding of how the election of a President doesn’t change anything other than that office, ipso facto, and that in fact many things are unlikely to change, even with Republican control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The Bill of Rights remains, the method of enacting laws in Congress hasn’t changed, the Administrative Procedures Act hasn’t been repealed, and to date essentially none of the enabling legislation that provides the framework for most executive departments and administrative agencies hasn’t changed at all. So the bureaucracy (with exceptions for the CBP officers starting to ask people their views of Trump, which is an indication of a different kind of state entirely) just goes to work until told to do otherwise.

    But these people I’m referring to consider, for instance, the IRS to be a “liberal” agency. Because, apparently, it considers that its mission to collect taxes didn’t go away when Trump was elected. And in today’s political climate, that’s evidence of the deep state.

  • Brien Jackson

    The change in terminology is odd. Before the inauguration we were pretty openly talking about how “the bureaucracy” and “civil servants” could resist Trump. The specific invocation of Turkish “deep state” concepts seems to have originated with Trump fan boys on the “alt-right” and at The Intercept trying to make it sound sinister.

  • Robespierre

    Spooks should not be allowed to interfere with democracy, even if they now happen to be anti Trump (some factions of them, some of the time). That Democrats now straight-face deny the existence of extra-democratic powers in the USA’s military and spying apparatus is ridiculous.

    • Brien Jackson

      This is ridiculous on its face. Consider what exactly we’re talking about: Accusations that Flynn and Trump campaign officials had inappropriate contacts with a foreign government, the possibility of corrupt dealings and conflicts in Russia from Trump’s business history, etc. There’s just not a lot of ability on the part of traditional news orgs to dig this info up, but clearly the public deserves to know it. If the IC finds the info, they absolutely should be finding channels by which to make it public knowledge.

      Moreover, this clearly isn’t some new thing. Deepthroat, Ellsberg, Snowden, Manning, the intelligence careerists who were leaking that Bush/Cheney were full of shit on Iraqi WMD’s, etc. all follow in the same strain.

    • DAS

      What’s more ridiculous is that Republicans, who put in place the legal apparatus that allows the US government to spy on us with near impunity (and who tarred and feathered anyone opposing those efforts as anti-American) as well as who benefited from publicized details of in progress investigations, are hollering about leaks and wiretapping now that they’ve been caught. They sound like preteens who’ve been caught stealing cookies, and they conplain about us being unreasonable hypocrites who put tribal political allegiance above all else? Talk about projection. #freudwouldhaveafieldday

    • There is nothing democratic about a system in which a person who loses the election by nearly three million votes is declared the winner.

  • imwithher

    The “Deep State” concept, as it is currently being used by Trump’s supporters, is just an excuse. Particularly at places like TAC, where the delusion that Trump was a FP realist-non interventionist, or even dove, ran very strong, there is now a need to construct a boogeyman to explain why and how those policies are not coming to fruition in the Trump Administration.

    Trump, the theory goes (and the theory is based on a few of his not very substantive, and well after the fact, comments about the second Iraq War and a couple of his similar stray statements about Libya and Syria, contradicted not only by other statements of his, but also by his general bellicosity), would, and wants to, bring the boys home from the Middle East, Europe and Asia, end the GWOT, have the US stop fluffing Israel, create detente with Russia, and perhaps with China too, close down the bases, and back the US out of NATO, ANZUS, and the treaties with Japan and South Korea, and so on.

    Well, this realism, or non interventionism, or isolationism, or foreign policy restraint, or Jacksonianism, or whatever you want to call it, does not seem to be coming to pass. The question is why. And the answer for the self deluded TAC Trumpians is the Deep State. The intelligence agencies, the military brass, and their supporters partly in and partly outside of the formal government, including but not limited to the MIC, will not let this happen.

    The concept, while bogus (at least as they are using it) is distinct from that of their purely anti bureaucratic hatred of the IRS and EPA. It is not merely that liberal civil servants, outside of defense, intelligence and FP circles, are continuing to do their jobs, at least until the law is actually changed and/or they are all fired. That’s a separate, if related, bugaboo. No, the focus here is on the Defense Department, the uniform wearing top brass in the military itself, the intelligence agencies, the State Department, law enforcement (to some extent), and the supporters of an aggressive, interventionist FP in Congress, the press (particularly the Eastern “Establishment” press like the NYT and “Foreign Policy”), and the defense and finance industries. All of whom are nasty “globalists.”

    The reality is that Trump has no coherent FP views. As with most things, beyond his racism, misogyny and greed, he has never been consistent about his view of the role of the USA in the world. And, right now, it is not so much the Deep State that is holding him back from implementing the FP that Pat Buchanan et al want him to, but Trump’s own inconsistency, and, of course, his total incompetence.

  • so-in-so

    To the point that the term represents “bureaucrats doing their work in the same old way”. it is trivially interesting as a counter to the perception that the President is God-King who flips a switch and the whole government now reflects his views.

    For the rest, I have to wonder how much is from people too invested in Jason Borne and La Fem Nikita.

  • No Longer Middle Aged Man

    This discussion thread makes the inet worthwhile — well-informed and informative, reasoned, minimal pissiness. Special thanks to h.p, djw and MDrew for helping me to think more clearly about the idea of haute bureaucracy vs deep state.

    • paul1970

      djw should post more often. When he does, he’s generally unshowy, informed, not obvious, and varied.

      • Murc

        Just in my opinion, djw does his REAL work in the comments.

        • MDrew

          Murc’s name should have been used in place of mine, with due respect to NLMAM. He was part of that first thread that clarified the concept under current discussion as apart from the perhaps ill-(but probably inevitably)-appropriated term. I just came in after with additional comments.

        • MDrew

          Also Dr. Dick and humanoid.panda, obviously.

  • Dennis Orphen

    We could argue forever about the existence of the Deep State, and its definition if there is such a thing. It’s the catsup of political science, if you will.

    The concept of Deep Politics, however, is very real. Carl Oglesby’s The Yankee and Cowboy War is a good introduction the the concept of deep politics.

    The Deep State is any combination of actors engaging in Deep Politics.

It is main inner container footer text