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.]