JFK knew all about it. But he was a threat to the establishment, especially the CIA. Trump isn’t sticking his neck out for anyone, and unfortunately, some of Trump’s supporters want to actually compare the two.
Dismissive responses AND posts that don’t adequately explain what you’re talking about are not going to win many debates.
I think the cited posts made it clear enough: Deep State != permanent government. NOAA and NWS are permanent government.
Hey, the people who pulled off the collapse of WTC7 (along with, presumably, the rest of the 9/11 operation) have great futures as James Bond villains, and that pays a *lot *more than the GS scale.
I think what they’re trying to get at is that while there’s no real “deep state” in the sense of a shadow government stealthily pulling the strings of government, what we do have is a large Federal bureaucracy made of up of self-selected people who probably have a somewhat common viewpoint on policies, and an associated set of private sector enterprises that interact with those bureaucracies. And all of those things have institutional inertia, their own agendas, and their own ways of doing things.
So when Senator Dingleberry shows up from North Dakota, and somehow rams a bill through Congress that runs counter to those agendas, viewpoints and ways of doing things, that bill’s execution gets slowed down, is less effective and is generally obstructed. That’s how I’m interpreting the “deep state”- just because elected officials decide something, it doesn’t mean that all the entrenched infrastructure of the day-to-day running the government is suddenly in line and motivated to make it happen when and how those elected officials want it to happen.
To use a personal hypothetical… I work for a large city, and if our city council was to somehow be overrun by Republicans who were bent on reducing city services to the lower income and/or ethnic residents, you had better believe that just about any council resolution or mandate of that kind would be slow-walked, marred by ‘incompetency’ or just plain obstructed by the rank and file, because as a rule, we’re not about that kind of thing here, regardless of what the elected types think. I can’t help but think that the Federal government doesn’t have something similar in each bureaucracy and on a broader scale.
Trump may not listen to experts but he is not the only person in his administration. Most of the people appointed to run the agencies are listening to experts.
Congress has its own experts and their policy choices have not changed.
Neoliberalism works everywhere it is tried. For example look at the Social Democracies such as Sweden, who tried neo liberalism after a collapse in the early 90s and found that it worked there, or Germany who reformed labor laws to neoliberal principles. Post Keynesianism is not well defined enough to be called a consensus.
You’re wrong. Almost 10% of all the posts in this short thread are people offering their views only to have you say “that’s not what I’m talking about”. If you had adequately explained things, that would be a lot closer to 0%.
Well that’s what I thought too, but when I asked
I was told that I wasn’t following the OP.
What you are describing isn’t a “deep state” it’s “a country’s government and culture”.
Are we supposed to expect every government employee to be a robot that can be re-programmed overnight after an election? Do we expect the entire country to simply fall in line after a 51% vote for a particular party? That’s ridiculous.
More like “a country’s government’s culture”.
What I understood to be the salient features of the “deep state” is basically that there’s a huge, entrenched, uncoordinated, but broadly similar infrastructure that makes the government go, and that because it’s large, it has a lot of inertia. And it’s also got its own viewpoint and way of doing things, which also have a lot of their own inertia.
All of the above is in the aggregate- it’s the procurement people at the USPS, it’s the operations people at the Coast Guard, it’s the catering companies that provide the food at the Pentagon, it’s the admin assistants in the DEA, etc… All of them collectively contribute to this- they do their jobs, and just because Trump, or whoever comes in and decides something, it doesn’t mean that they turn on a dime, agree, or even bother.
So from the perspective of elected officials and those who think that the bureaucracy and associated vendors should be robotically doing things exactly as told, this seems like it could be a vast conspiracy to thwart outsiders, when in fact, it’s probably more of an emergent, collective, organizational reaction to disruption.
cf. Eisenhower’s warning about the ‘military-industrial complex’.
So, what can we do about it?
Can also be seen in light of the rich controlling the economy, Washington beholden to Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and the petrodollar.
So what can we do about that?
I suspect there’s nothing much that could be done about it, if indeed anything CAN be done about it.
It’s not something that you can point at, or even really identify. For the most part, that sort of inherent institutional inertia and viewpoint is going to be present in ANY large enterprise- it’s what happens when you get a bunch of people working together. Some proportion are going to be motivated to do exactly what they’re told, how they’re told and when they’re told. Some other proportion are going to be motivated to do the exact opposite. And the vast majority are going to be individually motivated in varying amounts on each of those.
Imagine if you will, a university president coming in and telling students that they can’t drink, or screw or something. Some will comply immediately, others will engage in bacchanalian revels, and the majority will probably just turn a blind eye to the rules and carry on as they already were. That’s the sort of behavior we’re talking about here.
Probably the best way to deal with it would be to find a way to work WITH it, identifying it as a sort of natural phenomenon like the weather, rather than view it as some sort of hideous anti-democratic abberation. The only reason it’s an issue for Trump is because he’s not playing within the usual Washington rules, and is getting exactly the sort of pushback and disregard you’d expect.
’