Deep State

Wikipedia

From The Atlantic: Are Deep-State Leakers Defending Democracy or Corroding It?

From the Chicago Tribune: Trump is showing how the Deep State really works

ISTM that while Deep Staters are understandably provoked by the Trump Administration, most notably Trump himself, this is a very slippery slope they’re treading on. Once unelected officials undermining elected officials that they consider intolerable becomes the accepted way of doing things, there’s no telling where that could stop, especially as each person’s conception of intolerable can vary greatly from the next person’s.

Not to mention the possibility of backlash, as in the Atlantic article.

Very dangerous situation, IMO.

The real danger here is the adoption of a Turkish myth concerning the secret manipulation of government by a shadowy cabal of actors to describe beaurecrats and whistleblowers. This widespread acceptance of conspiratorial theories in Turkish society provided the main mechanism by which last year’s coup was blamed on FETO followed by the massive purge of civil servants from every part of government. Of course these people are replaced by the ruling party’s membership.

Leaks aren’t a conspiracy. They’re a failure of management. Whistleblowers aren’t a conspiracy. They’re individuals acting on a perception of injustice. There is no danger in leakers and whistleblowers. There is a grave danger in accepting our government runs on conspiracies of unelected manipulators. That is provably a means by which a democracy can be destroyed.

This assumes that once started there will be no end to it which I seriously doubt.

I’d consider it more akin to a mutiny. It’s a helluva thing to mutiny and it takes a lot to get the mutineers going but at some point a line is crossed and they just cannot let things continue as they are. Not all mutinies are righteous but in some cases the officers need to be stopped.

In most cases the mutiny is local and over once that issue is behind them. It’s not like tomorrow they will mutiny if they don’t get ice cream for dessert.

I agree with OP. Leaks of intercepted communications to influence government are very dangerous. It’s one of the many reasons there should be better protections for Americans’ privacy.

That said, I also think (presumably unlike the OP) that the Trump Presidency is a clear and present danger to our national security.

I don’t know which is worse, but both are quite bad.

I’d rather different factions in the government be at war with eachother. Too often they unite to turn their sights on the innocent public.

It seems to me that a group of unelected whistleblowers working toward the same goal of changing Trump’s policies by leaking information to change public opinion would indeed be a conspiracy of unelected manipulators.

As opposed to a conspiracy of elected manipulators that is doing everything it can to deflect attention by complaining about the leakers rather than the actual information being leaked? Hand-in-hand, of course, with right-wing media outlets like Faux News and Breitbart.

Is it more or less dangerous than Russia influencing our elections?

Besides, its already illegal. What else do you want to do make it double illegal?

To me it all comes down to whether or not this is whistleblowing or political sabotage.

When I was younger, I was at a bar. My waitress came up to me and told me something terrible: the bartender had slipped a tranquilizer in my drink, and was planning to cart my unconscious body out back, where the Russian mob was waiting to buy it from him, to sell for spare organs.

I was outraged, of course, and I told her so. How DARE she snitch on her employer like that? The sacred employer-employee relationship was in danger!

This is how I feel too.

This is one of the many reasons that democracy is better than dictatorship: checks and balances keep one predator (or one predator and his oligarch buddies) from feasting on the citizenry.

We have several branches of the military for reasons other than the purely practical ‘on land differs from on sea differs from in air’ considerations: they watch each other. We have differing intelligence agencies partly so that they can watch each other. We have a free press so that it can watch them all–it’s an essential check on those in government.

Humans can always find excellent rationales and justifications for consolidating power. Checks and balances–institutional (branches of government) and customary (whistle-blowing and leaking), both–are vital to keep self-justifying power-grabbers from succeeding.

Leak away, patriots.

There isn’t a group of unelected whistleblowers interfering with Trump’s administration. One of the reasons why the term Deep State is misapplied here.

Are leaks changing Trump’s policies? How so?

Are public opinions altered by the linked information referenced in the OP?

How do you know the leakers/whistleblowers aren’t elected?

It’s really dangerous to operate on so many assumptions especially when there is an attempt to mislabel bureaucrats as members of the Deep State. It’s layering bullshit on bullshit.

I think it’s a mistake to focus too rigidly on the Turkish Deep State example, where there was apparently something akin to a secret society, ala the Freemasons or Illuminati. What’s being discussed here is the attitude that bureaucrats can take it upon themselves to undermine the elected government, in cases where they personally think the country would be better served by taking a different approach.

Several posters have essentially taken the position that the dangers of a Deep State need to be balanced against the horrors of the Trump administration, and that’s certainly a valid equation. But what these posters need to appreciate is that the dynamic won’t always be on these terms.

There are many aspects of society which work on a sort of social compact, for want of a better term, in which various members agree on a set of rules of interaction. The idea is “hey, we disagree on many things, sometimes vehemently, but instead of constantly fighting to the death over everything, let’s agree on a set of rules that both sides will follow. Sometimes one side will win and sometimes the other side will, but at least no one gets killed”. But the essential point is that both sides have to follow the rules. If one side decides that the rules are good for the other side to follow, but when we have the opportunity to “cheat” then we don’t, those rules are not going to last, because the other side will inevitably come to the same conclusion about them, and will act the same way when in the same situation. Bottom line is that anyone violating the “social compact” needs to consider the possible outcome of this as the permanent loss of this behavioral standard, and can’t just assume that it’s just for this one case and that the considerations are limited to the specific ones at hand.

So it is when considering Deep State. Sometimes one party gets their elected officials in office and sometimes the other party does. The bureaucracy tends to be more permanent and has elements of a variety of political views. Question is: is there broad acceptance of the notion that however much members of the bureaucracy may have their own opinion of how to do things, they are ultimately subservient to those who were elected by the people under the current system? Or do they have autonomy to act in defiance of, or even actively undermine, the elected officials? I don’t think “guys who agree with me can do it because the other side is really really bad, but guys who don’t agree with me can’t do it because we’re basically good” is a viable position, however appealing it might be.

[Liberals in particular might want to consider that the intelligence agencies, and the security and military forces generally, are probably weighted to the right side of the spectrum.]

[On a related note, it’s perhaps worth noting that this same issue also gives impetus to some of the “hypocrisy” issues that sometimes come up. Because the “rules” (in the sense of accepted procedures) need to be consistent, and each side needs to have confidence that if they play by them then the other side will play by them too. If one side changes its attitude to the “rules” - e.g. confirmations, filibusters, executive orders, recess appointments etc. etc. - based on whatever is to their advantage at any given instant, then the other side will inevitably - and is perfectly entitled to - do the same. So a discussion of whether a given side’s position on a given strategy/approach is consistent with their prior positions or is being adopted opportunistically is relevant and valid.]

They are changing his policy makers. Either way, they are working towards a common goal.

Yes, public opinion is being altered. That’s the only reason to leak.

You are right on the third point. They could be elected, but I doubt it.

Of course, this is why I do think that if* the intelligence agencies are pushing against Trump or leaking it means that when those institutions do think that Trump is a huge danger. One then should take their opinion or their evidence very seriously for they are indeed going not only against Trump but against their own side that is in congress supporting Trump.

*(and there are doubts about that, it may had been western or allied intelligence groups the ones that made the leaks, and even the Russians might be involved, under the reasoning that they would like to see constant chaos in the political institutions of the USA)

I assume that she was asked for her resignation, and is now working at Chili’s with Flynn.

That misses the point. The issue is not whether these intelligence people are right or wrong.

But FWIW, attitudes about Russia don’t fall on a right/left spectrum. (You may recall Mitt Romney saying Russia was the #1 geopolitical foe of the US and being ridiculed for this by Obama and assorted allied leftists and media.) It’s only because Trump’s attitude to Russia was perceived as a weak point that his opponents coalesced around the notion that the Russians are the bogeymen de jour. Point being there’s no indication that intelligence suspicion about Trump over the Russia issue is an indication that there must really really be a lot of danger, versus those particular people - whether right or left wing themselves - being really really concerned about Russia.

But that’s an aside. I’m not looking to debate the specifics of the Russia issue here, as it obscures the issue being raised here.

Not if the leaks are not coming from our intelligence agencies. In essence that would make a lot of yours points moot.

But if we entertain the hypothetical, even the Atlantic article is of the classic ending in “?” variety. Those ones that usually mean that the question raised is more likely to me answered with NO.

From the link in the OP:

Resigned? Hell no! I had her criminally prosecuted for her outrageous behavior.

No, it wouldn’t. All my points are entirely premised on the notion that the leaks are coming from our intelligence agencies. It’s possible that you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said, in which case it’s probably best just to drop it.

Just saying.

In any case I did follow with a counterpoint to your hypothetical in the thread.