Eat my hat.
Mazel tough!
The problem with this–with respect to a conspiracy nut–is that they’re totally ignorant of those mountains of evidence. They haven’t bothered to read the Saturn V Flight Manual, or bothered to look it up, or have any idea that all this information might even be out there. They just have some JPG compressed image that might be doctored and maybe has some confusing elements, from which they conclude that the whole thing is a conspiracy.
And you aren’t going to convince them to seek out these mountains of evidence, because one of the flaws in their mindset is that they only seek evidence that confirms what they believe already, rather than seeking out evidence that might prove them wrong. Most people have this defect, really, but for conspiracy nuts it’s ramped up to an extreme.
I think you’re exactly right here. There are levels of nuttiness between the ‘Deep State’ and ‘Q’.
The Deep State, as originally coined or depicted by Steve Bannon (at least, he claimed to have come up with the term) meant simply the entrenched government bureaucracy that exists independent of, and exists beyond the lengths of, independent presidential terms. Since the trump admin wanted to tear down traditional government, bureaucratic institutions were reframed as not a necessary framework of institutional stability that enables smooth transition of power from admin to admin, but a sinister cabal that’s stopping King trump from gettin’ stuff done.
Q, on the other hand, exists on the level where the real crazy lives. The Illuminati, JFK Jr. triumphantly coming back from having faked his death, eeevil Democrats kidnapping and eating babies for eternal youth in pizza parlor basements, et al.
It’s not just institutional inertia; there is a rule of law issue.
Bureaucrats apply policies, that ultimately are based on laws and regulations. If a new administration comes in and tries to get the bureaucrats to change the policies, they may run up against those regs and laws, which leads the bureaucrats and DOJ lawyers to oppose the new policy.
If a proposed new policy is not consistent with the regs, maybe those regs can be changed, but that could require compliance with a lengthy reg-review publication and revision process.
If the proposed new policy is inconsistent with a law, then the law needs to be changed, and the new administration may not be able to do so, unless they can convince a majority in both houses to make the legislative change.
The bureaucrats in these cases would be resisting the new policy because they are required by their oaths of office to comply with the laws.
But to the new administration, this is evidence of “Deep State”.
That is exactly the point of George Monbiot’s article today in the Guardian:
Atlas network, a name worth remembering, I am afraid. I am convinced there is something to this theory. A lot, actually.
What in an earlier life was often referred to as the “permanent government”.
And yes, there has always been derision of “faceless bureaucrats” getting in the way of the agenda of What The People Want™. We know it is a daggum movie/TV trope that you have some feckless court official letting out the killer on a technicality or a smarmy regulatory-agency type getting in the way of the ghostbusting. Bannon & Co, took that to the next level taking advantage of the low-information voters who can’t believe that someone will not just obey the President.
The issue is also one of the consequences of the US separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, a new government coming in normally can change laws and regulations relatively easily. New President, not so much, so then you see executive orders being used to try to effect policy changes, but those orders can’t undercut laws.
Remember that the Deep State, with its unimaginably vast financial resources and the entire intelligence apparatus, military and police at its disposal, can’t stop curious amateurs from unraveling its plans and freely posting about them on the Internet.
Curses!