8 ms·

A fantastic read on the so called 'Deep state' is "National Security and Double Government" [1] by Michael J. Glennon in the Harvard Law School National Securit

A fantastic read on the so called 'Deep state' is "National Security and Double Government" [1] by Michael J. Glennon in the Harvard Law School National Security Journal. Abstract: "National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy." [1] http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Dowwie 10y ago
Glennon spoke about this work at a CATO event: https://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-government https://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-governm...
d4nt 10y ago
Isn't this what we mean when we talk about democracies with "well established institutions". In other words, isn't it a feature not a bug? The public institutions wield power just like the press, the judiciary, the legislature etc. And policy that does not meet with a broad acceptance by all sections of society gets blocked one way or another.
- concinds 10y ago
  There is no such thing as a "war institution". All the above institutions are meant as a check against Presidential power, all of whom operate in the open, whereas we're talking about a state within the state that only follows its own rules, gets to operate outside of the spotlight, and has unlimited power (can you imagine Trump explicitly criticizing the deep state? There's a reason he hasn't done that yet, you don't attack those more powerful than you).
  - devoply 10y ago
    Kennedy did. Go look up some of his speeches. They took care of him. They would do the same for Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
    - concinds 10y ago
      Exactly. Not that those Twitter chickenhawks who support a coup would mind. On a completely unrelated note, a few days ago @Jack compared Twitter usage patterns in the US as similar to that before the Arab Spring. Huh.
      - Ygg2 10y ago
        Military junta it is.
    - steamer25 10y ago
      Quote from that speech: "And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we [the Kennedy administration] intend to do it" It's amazing how prescient he is of the mounting conflict between full transparency and full privacy and the battle over who should conform to one or the other. I've also been reminded of Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
youdontknowtho 10y ago
Heard about this on "On The Media". Nice.
caycep 10y ago
There is also Dana Priest's book, "Top Secret Nation" That being said, I am not sure how much of this is an organized conspiracy vs. bureaucratic entrenchment of known and familiar practices, defending one's turf, prolonging employment, etc....sometimes these things take on lives of their own.
- api 10y ago
  The real question I guess you are asking is whether the deep state has its own entirely separate objectives or even philosophical tenets and if so what are these.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Chathamization 10y ago
> This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory It could also be explained by Obama and Bush sharing similar philosophies on the security state, and there's a lot of evidence that supports that. That's not to say that the agencies aren't problematic, but rather that elected officials have been mostly happy with what they're doing, and that this is the reason why they keep doing it. Where there were differences in policy between the administrations, we did see a change - for instance, in the use of waterboarding. It's just that these differences weren't as numerous as many people assumed.
- jn1234 10y ago
  Or that Bush realized the folly of his foreign policy and dramatically changed it in the later part of his term after the shitshow in Iraq.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ENTP 10y ago
    My understanding was that Iraq was less about real foreign policy and more about his dad's "unfinished business", hence all the nonsense surrounding legitimacy of invasion.
- moomin 10y ago
  I remember an Econmist article about Obama before he took the reins that said that, whilst his outlook was different and his tactics might sometimes differ, the fact remained that he would continue to serve American interests and that would disappoint a lot of external observers. However far apart they were (and they were pretty far apart), Bush and Obama mostly agreed about what the challenges facing the nation were. There's plenty of evidence that Trump doesn't share that common ground.
- glitchdout 10y ago
  > It could also be explained by Obama and Bush sharing similar philosophies on the security state, and there's a lot of evidence that supports that. Like this video from 2007? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8
rrggrr 10y ago
Key question is not, is there a "deep state". The question is this... does the deep state have US National interests at heart, or are they another special interest group pursuing their own interests. Several ways to tell: - Where do/did suspected private sector "deep state" players invest? In the US or abroad. - Whom do/did they lobby for or represent in the private sector. - Who do they associate with. The criticism in some circles is that suspected deep-state members are too close to certain countries (eg. Saudi Arabia). There are criticisms leveled that suspected deep-state members are either compromised by foreign powers, or they have compromised US officials, and journalists. I am all for accountability and an infrequent but meaningful shake-up and reset of political influence and power. But the realpolitik bottom-line is that intent and effectiveness matter more than process or accountability. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think John Podesta, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Soros or Facebook is the "deep state". What matters is the NET result on US national interests at home and abroad.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Who decides what the "national interests" are? Are there even such things? One thing I know: the things politicians and talking heads in the media often bandy about as being "in the national interest" aren't things in my interest. Things like waging war on countries that didn't attack the US. Or waging the War on Drugs. Or bailing out the banks. Or the US alliances with certain dictatorial states and human rights abusers. Fuck that. I'm not interested in that. I don't think these benefit the US either. People bandy about the term "national interest" as if it's some kind of objective standard which we all agree on. But that completely ignores the many diverse and often conflicting interests of the hundreds of millions of people who are the citizens of the United States. What these so-called "national interests" really are are the interests of those in power. That's why the things I say are in the national interest don't matter, but the things they say are in the national interest do. So I'm not sure how useful it is to judge the actions of the "deep state" members by whether they're serving the "national interest". That's letting them make the rules to their own game.
  - graedus 10y ago
    Indeed - it's a term with a nebulous, vague and malleable definition that sounds good to people without any real specificity attached. That's why politicians and pundits love to use it. Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.
buro9 10y ago
It doesn't matter who is prime minister, the government is always in power. I think the quote is something like that, which is a slight at the UK civil service because even if you elect a different party, prime minister and ministers control is ultimately held by those who exercise it... which tends to be the civil service. Another quote along those lines is this one: Hacker: If there were a conflict of interests which side would the civil service really be on? Bernard: The winning side, Prime Minister.
hackuser 10y ago
Daniel Patrick Moynihan[0] wrote a book called Secrecy. If I remember it correctly, I took away two main points: * A highly valuable asset within government is information and thus workers are incentivized to hoard it and protect its value, including by classifying it and not sharing it (i.e., keeping secrets). * Secrecy can lead to extraordinarily bad results. Instead of being exposed to open debate, the secret information or idea is restricted to a few insiders who lack diverse perspectives, can easily form an echo chamber, or who may be politically pressured or desirous to support the conclusion. [0] Unusual career, if you don't know of him: Senator, PhD. and published sociologist, Ambassador to India and the UN, White House advisor on urban affairs. With his deep skills and experience in both research and government, few are more qualified to talk about these things.
- hoprocker 10y ago
  Additionally, started out life working-class and was working as a longshoreman while attending CUNY; Ta-Nehisi Coates spent some time describing Moynihan's remarkable gifts in an interesting article for The Atlantic a few years ago[0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-bla...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I avoided praising him too much in order to avoid other questions, but since you bring it up: We should also remember his advocacy of some bad things, including some arguably discriminatory or at least condescending policies toward his black fellow citizens, and support of mass murderers in Indonesia and East Timor. (I'm not going into details, but people interested in him should look up the whole picture.)
mcguire 10y ago
Or, it could be explained by the existence and raison d'être of a professional civil service.
selimthegrim 10y ago
The Boston Globe ran a piece on him a while back: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-wa...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Dowwie 10y ago

Glennon spoke about this work at a CATO event: https://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-government https://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-governm...

d4nt 10y ago

Isn't this what we mean when we talk about democracies with "well established institutions". In other words, isn't it a feature not a bug? The public institutions wield power just like the press, the judiciary, the legislature etc. And policy that does not meet with a broad acceptance by all sections of society gets blocked one way or another.

concinds 10y ago
There is no such thing as a "war institution". All the above institutions are meant as a check against Presidential power, all of whom operate in the open, whereas we're talking about a state within the state that only follows its own rules, gets to operate outside of the spotlight, and has unlimited power (can you imagine Trump explicitly criticizing the deep state? There's a reason he hasn't done that yet, you don't attack those more powerful than you).
- devoply 10y ago
  Kennedy did. Go look up some of his speeches. They took care of him. They would do the same for Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
  - concinds 10y ago
    Exactly. Not that those Twitter chickenhawks who support a coup would mind. On a completely unrelated note, a few days ago @Jack compared Twitter usage patterns in the US as similar to that before the Arab Spring. Huh.
    - Ygg2 10y ago
      Military junta it is.
  - steamer25 10y ago
    Quote from that speech: "And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we [the Kennedy administration] intend to do it" It's amazing how prescient he is of the mounting conflict between full transparency and full privacy and the battle over who should conform to one or the other. I've also been reminded of Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

youdontknowtho 10y ago

Heard about this on "On The Media". Nice.

caycep 10y ago

There is also Dana Priest's book, "Top Secret Nation" That being said, I am not sure how much of this is an organized conspiracy vs. bureaucratic entrenchment of known and familiar practices, defending one's turf, prolonging employment, etc....sometimes these things take on lives of their own.

api 10y ago
The real question I guess you are asking is whether the deep state has its own entirely separate objectives or even philosophical tenets and if so what are these.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Chathamization 10y ago

> This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory It could also be explained by Obama and Bush sharing similar philosophies on the security state, and there's a lot of evidence that supports that. That's not to say that the agencies aren't problematic, but rather that elected officials have been mostly happy with what they're doing, and that this is the reason why they keep doing it. Where there were differences in policy between the administrations, we did see a change - for instance, in the use of waterboarding. It's just that these differences weren't as numerous as many people assumed.

jn1234 10y ago
Or that Bush realized the folly of his foreign policy and dramatically changed it in the later part of his term after the shitshow in Iraq.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ENTP 10y ago
  My understanding was that Iraq was less about real foreign policy and more about his dad's "unfinished business", hence all the nonsense surrounding legitimacy of invasion.
moomin 10y ago
I remember an Econmist article about Obama before he took the reins that said that, whilst his outlook was different and his tactics might sometimes differ, the fact remained that he would continue to serve American interests and that would disappoint a lot of external observers. However far apart they were (and they were pretty far apart), Bush and Obama mostly agreed about what the challenges facing the nation were. There's plenty of evidence that Trump doesn't share that common ground.
glitchdout 10y ago
> It could also be explained by Obama and Bush sharing similar philosophies on the security state, and there's a lot of evidence that supports that. Like this video from 2007? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

rrggrr 10y ago

Key question is not, is there a "deep state". The question is this... does the deep state have US National interests at heart, or are they another special interest group pursuing their own interests. Several ways to tell: - Where do/did suspected private sector "deep state" players invest? In the US or abroad. - Whom do/did they lobby for or represent in the private sector. - Who do they associate with. The criticism in some circles is that suspected deep-state members are too close to certain countries (eg. Saudi Arabia). There are criticisms leveled that suspected deep-state members are either compromised by foreign powers, or they have compromised US officials, and journalists. I am all for accountability and an infrequent but meaningful shake-up and reset of political influence and power. But the realpolitik bottom-line is that intent and effectiveness matter more than process or accountability. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think John Podesta, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Soros or Facebook is the "deep state". What matters is the NET result on US national interests at home and abroad.

pmoriarty 10y ago
Who decides what the "national interests" are? Are there even such things? One thing I know: the things politicians and talking heads in the media often bandy about as being "in the national interest" aren't things in my interest. Things like waging war on countries that didn't attack the US. Or waging the War on Drugs. Or bailing out the banks. Or the US alliances with certain dictatorial states and human rights abusers. Fuck that. I'm not interested in that. I don't think these benefit the US either. People bandy about the term "national interest" as if it's some kind of objective standard which we all agree on. But that completely ignores the many diverse and often conflicting interests of the hundreds of millions of people who are the citizens of the United States. What these so-called "national interests" really are are the interests of those in power. That's why the things I say are in the national interest don't matter, but the things they say are in the national interest do. So I'm not sure how useful it is to judge the actions of the "deep state" members by whether they're serving the "national interest". That's letting them make the rules to their own game.
- graedus 10y ago
  Indeed - it's a term with a nebulous, vague and malleable definition that sounds good to people without any real specificity attached. That's why politicians and pundits love to use it. Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.

buro9 10y ago

It doesn't matter who is prime minister, the government is always in power. I think the quote is something like that, which is a slight at the UK civil service because even if you elect a different party, prime minister and ministers control is ultimately held by those who exercise it... which tends to be the civil service. Another quote along those lines is this one: Hacker: If there were a conflict of interests which side would the civil service really be on? Bernard: The winning side, Prime Minister.

hackuser 10y ago

Daniel Patrick Moynihan[0] wrote a book called Secrecy. If I remember it correctly, I took away two main points: * A highly valuable asset within government is information and thus workers are incentivized to hoard it and protect its value, including by classifying it and not sharing it (i.e., keeping secrets). * Secrecy can lead to extraordinarily bad results. Instead of being exposed to open debate, the secret information or idea is restricted to a few insiders who lack diverse perspectives, can easily form an echo chamber, or who may be politically pressured or desirous to support the conclusion. [0] Unusual career, if you don't know of him: Senator, PhD. and published sociologist, Ambassador to India and the UN, White House advisor on urban affairs. With his deep skills and experience in both research and government, few are more qualified to talk about these things.

hoprocker 10y ago
Additionally, started out life working-class and was working as a longshoreman while attending CUNY; Ta-Nehisi Coates spent some time describing Moynihan's remarkable gifts in an interesting article for The Atlantic a few years ago[0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-bla...
- hackuser 10y ago
  I avoided praising him too much in order to avoid other questions, but since you bring it up: We should also remember his advocacy of some bad things, including some arguably discriminatory or at least condescending policies toward his black fellow citizens, and support of mass murderers in Indonesia and East Timor. (I'm not going into details, but people interested in him should look up the whole picture.)

mcguire 10y ago

Or, it could be explained by the existence and raison d'être of a professional civil service.

selimthegrim 10y ago

The Boston Globe ran a piece on him a while back: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-wa...