4 ms·

The deep state is just the permanent bureaucracy that sticks around as presidents come and go. Those people run a lot of shit, and they have a lot of influence.

The deep state is just the permanent bureaucracy that sticks around as presidents come and go. Those people run a lot of shit, and they have a lot of influence. Whether Byrne is being rational about this group is a whole separate question, but the "deep state" is a real thing. (And yes, the concept attracts a lot of conspiracy theories. However, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, so we can't discount all of them without a merits-based examination of each hypothesis.)

rmilejczz 7y ago
As I’ve said to others, yes I understand the “well technically” explanation of deep state but I’d posit that you’re still not particularly mentally fit if you’re declaring war on such a poorly conceived adversary. How do you go to war with a deep state? What do you do? It sounds like pure delusion
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Something that people who believe they are sane don't generally understand is that manifest psychosis/mania/paranoia cannot be refuted by proof (assuming it exists) that what you are talking about is accurate in some sense. It's like if you are drunk, and you successfully drive your car through an obstacle course. You're still drunk!
davidw 7y ago
> The deep state is just the permanent bureaucracy that sticks around as presidents come and go. It's also far from a monolithic group of people with a similar point of view.
- derefr 7y ago
  You could say the workers of such a permanent bureaucracy are at least united in the belief in the benefits of there being such a permanent bureaucracy; and more specifically, in the benefits of "non-partisan" bureaucracy, bureaucracy that isn't a catspaw of the party in power. (As opposed to a political spoils system, where each new administration comes with its own Civil Service.) And, because of that implicit endorsement of non-partisanship as "how the job gets done", these bureaucrats tend to also be considered technocrats: people who evaluate policy mostly on how the ROI works out for "the people" or "the state", rather than in how it figures into any particular political narrative, or into their own "courtly favour" with the administration. The label of "technocrat" then tends to put the workers of this bureaucracy into natural opposition—political-rhetoric-wise—with populist politicians, who as a rule evaluate policy by how it "plays" with the man-on-the-street (who has no knowledge of statecraft), and who tend to ignore what a policy will (or won't) actually be likely to accomplish. This opposition carries whether any given bureaucrat has any actual underlying opposition to the current populist sentiment or not. So there's at least one other thing these bureaucrats will tend to agree on: to the degree that there is, in a political "era", a populist fervour in the country, bureaucrats will be unilaterally hated by the man on the street, due to the rhetorical manipulations of populist politicians.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    If bureaucrats/technocrats "guard" us against "populists", who guards them? Most bureaucrats and technocrats are just like any other human beings: often partisan, selfish and not decisively more able to distinguish a "good" decision from a bad one. At best statecraft is the ultimate field for The Iron Law of Bureaucracy https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Would you talk about soldiers, police officers, teachers, and firefighters the same way? The word "bureaucrat" is just a catchall term for the people who work for the government and can't possibly be important or decent people because they don't occupy any mental space in your head.
      - natmaka 7y ago
        > The word "bureaucrat" is just a catchall term for the people who work for the government "People who work for the government" are "civil servants" (or "public servants") A bureaucrat is a member of an "administrative system governing a large institution". Each civil servant has some power when it comes to do what/how he wants to. On this behalf bureaucrats and (even more) technocrats are among the most powerful. > soldiers A soldier must obey (nearly) blindly, becoming a mere instrument for brass. Brass bureaucrats/technocrats have their own political agenda, and many adjust their actions accordingly. > police officers Most aren't bureaucrats. Theoretically they enforce laws, even if they don't agree with them. In practice many adjust their actions according to their own political agenda. > teachers Most aren't bureaucrats. Many teach according to their own political agenda, or just guard while repeating state propaganda. > firefighters Most aren't bureaucrats/technocrats. Moreover their field is not politically-loaded (nearly everyone agrees about what they have to do, and how).
landryraccoon 7y ago
If that term just refers to veteran government workers, why do you refer to them as the deep state instead of the competent state, or government veterans? It would be a lot more understandable and not sound like a conspiracy theory with that wording.
- monknomo 7y ago
  or even civil servants
  - bredren 7y ago
    This is the appropriate term. The problem with using it is it has a default positive sound to it. “Civil servants” are probably working to do good, no matter the political winds. While those in the “deep state,” these folks are agenda driven and not trying to benefit the average American. Thus, it is hard to vilify civil servants.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Have you ever watched the show Yes, Minister?
    - caseysoftware 7y ago
      > “Civil servants” are probably working to do good, no matter the political winds. "Working to do good" is an interesting phrase because it begs the question: Who's good? Is it the citizen's good? There's not a reasonable way to approach or decide that short of elections (the ultimate form of polling), therefore whoever the citizens have elected should determine the "good." Or alternatively, it could be their individual good and therefore irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. In that case, riches, stability, or whatever all fit the bill but are probably counter to the "common good." Or alternatively, it could be their agency's good and - once again - irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. As long as the agency goes on an grows, that fits their "good" but may be counter to the "common good." And unfortunately just declaring "we all know what good is!" doesn't apply when we take just the topics of education, healthcare policy, and the military. Or to put it another way.. who do "civil servants" serve? If it's not the citizens, then we have a problem.
bsder 7y ago
> However, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, so we can't discount all of them without a merits-based examination of each hypothesis.) No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless evidence moves the Bayesian priors, conspiracy theories should be regarded as the garbage they are. I don't subscribe to the post-truth society.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  What's extraordinary about conspiracies?
  - oxide 7y ago
    What is ordinary about them is a better question. The burden of proof is absolutely in your ballpark here. Can you prove these aren't just crackpot theories? Do you have any primary sources or tangible evidence to support your claims?
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      Other way around. You're the one who said they were "extraordinary."
      - rmilejczz 7y ago
        In the absence of evidence of the extraordinary, it seems most prudent to fall back to the ordinary in the vein of Occam’s razor. If you see a bright flash and then a tree catches fire, do you assume it’s lightning or a deep state conspiracy?
    - nickpsecurity 7y ago
      I argued they're so ordinary and pervasive that considering that angle should be more common: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psychology_7.html#c1503021 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psycholog...
  - 7y ago
4ec0755f5522 7y ago
Where I come from it's just called "government". That not every public sector worker is replaced every four years is quite ok, it's how things continue to function over time. If you use the phrase "deep state" to describe "functioning government" you are adopting the language of nutjobs and either are one or deserve to be called out as such.
- bmm6o 7y ago
  "Deep state" is intended to sound sinister. Brietbart coined it and it's amazing how quickly it's entered our political lexicon.
compuguy 7y ago
Most people call the "deep state" government employees (or civil servants). I honestly think that people outside the Washington D.C. area don't truly understand how much the rely on the federal government...
atombender 7y ago
I disagree. In the U.S., "deep state" is a deliberate reframing of the permanent bureaucracy to suggest that there's a faction of civil servants that make up a clandestine network working behind the scenes to manipulate or subvert democracy for their own ends without any accountability. It's not a new idea, but the use in the U.S. is pretty new, and has seen seen a resurgence in popularity since Trump — a populist whose campaign was partly based on the premise of a deep state — was elected, partly in thanks to books like "Killing the Deep state" [1]. There have existed, and there still exist, "true" deep state systems, such as the intelligence services and FSB (and related obligarch axis) in Russia, that we should be wary of. Co-opting the phrase to refer to any permanent bureaucratic structure as a deep state is needlessly reductive (and historically incorrect), and also normalizes something we should consider a dangerous aberration. It is a conspiracy theory, but it's taken very seriously by the people who use it. I recommend this [2] video for some historians' perspective. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp/1630061026 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?461976-2/deep-state-american-history https://www.c-span.org/video/?461976-2/deep-state-american-h...

rmilejczz 7y ago

As I’ve said to others, yes I understand the “well technically” explanation of deep state but I’d posit that you’re still not particularly mentally fit if you’re declaring war on such a poorly conceived adversary. How do you go to war with a deep state? What do you do? It sounds like pure delusion

perl4ever 7y ago
Something that people who believe they are sane don't generally understand is that manifest psychosis/mania/paranoia cannot be refuted by proof (assuming it exists) that what you are talking about is accurate in some sense. It's like if you are drunk, and you successfully drive your car through an obstacle course. You're still drunk!

davidw 7y ago

> The deep state is just the permanent bureaucracy that sticks around as presidents come and go. It's also far from a monolithic group of people with a similar point of view.

derefr 7y ago
You could say the workers of such a permanent bureaucracy are at least united in the belief in the benefits of there being such a permanent bureaucracy; and more specifically, in the benefits of "non-partisan" bureaucracy, bureaucracy that isn't a catspaw of the party in power. (As opposed to a political spoils system, where each new administration comes with its own Civil Service.) And, because of that implicit endorsement of non-partisanship as "how the job gets done", these bureaucrats tend to also be considered technocrats: people who evaluate policy mostly on how the ROI works out for "the people" or "the state", rather than in how it figures into any particular political narrative, or into their own "courtly favour" with the administration. The label of "technocrat" then tends to put the workers of this bureaucracy into natural opposition—political-rhetoric-wise—with populist politicians, who as a rule evaluate policy by how it "plays" with the man-on-the-street (who has no knowledge of statecraft), and who tend to ignore what a policy will (or won't) actually be likely to accomplish. This opposition carries whether any given bureaucrat has any actual underlying opposition to the current populist sentiment or not. So there's at least one other thing these bureaucrats will tend to agree on: to the degree that there is, in a political "era", a populist fervour in the country, bureaucrats will be unilaterally hated by the man on the street, due to the rhetorical manipulations of populist politicians.
- natmaka 7y ago
  If bureaucrats/technocrats "guard" us against "populists", who guards them? Most bureaucrats and technocrats are just like any other human beings: often partisan, selfish and not decisively more able to distinguish a "good" decision from a bad one. At best statecraft is the ultimate field for The Iron Law of Bureaucracy https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Would you talk about soldiers, police officers, teachers, and firefighters the same way? The word "bureaucrat" is just a catchall term for the people who work for the government and can't possibly be important or decent people because they don't occupy any mental space in your head.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      > The word "bureaucrat" is just a catchall term for the people who work for the government "People who work for the government" are "civil servants" (or "public servants") A bureaucrat is a member of an "administrative system governing a large institution". Each civil servant has some power when it comes to do what/how he wants to. On this behalf bureaucrats and (even more) technocrats are among the most powerful. > soldiers A soldier must obey (nearly) blindly, becoming a mere instrument for brass. Brass bureaucrats/technocrats have their own political agenda, and many adjust their actions accordingly. > police officers Most aren't bureaucrats. Theoretically they enforce laws, even if they don't agree with them. In practice many adjust their actions according to their own political agenda. > teachers Most aren't bureaucrats. Many teach according to their own political agenda, or just guard while repeating state propaganda. > firefighters Most aren't bureaucrats/technocrats. Moreover their field is not politically-loaded (nearly everyone agrees about what they have to do, and how).

landryraccoon 7y ago

If that term just refers to veteran government workers, why do you refer to them as the deep state instead of the competent state, or government veterans? It would be a lot more understandable and not sound like a conspiracy theory with that wording.

monknomo 7y ago
or even civil servants
- bredren 7y ago
  This is the appropriate term. The problem with using it is it has a default positive sound to it. “Civil servants” are probably working to do good, no matter the political winds. While those in the “deep state,” these folks are agenda driven and not trying to benefit the average American. Thus, it is hard to vilify civil servants.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Have you ever watched the show Yes, Minister?
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    > “Civil servants” are probably working to do good, no matter the political winds. "Working to do good" is an interesting phrase because it begs the question: Who's good? Is it the citizen's good? There's not a reasonable way to approach or decide that short of elections (the ultimate form of polling), therefore whoever the citizens have elected should determine the "good." Or alternatively, it could be their individual good and therefore irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. In that case, riches, stability, or whatever all fit the bill but are probably counter to the "common good." Or alternatively, it could be their agency's good and - once again - irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. As long as the agency goes on an grows, that fits their "good" but may be counter to the "common good." And unfortunately just declaring "we all know what good is!" doesn't apply when we take just the topics of education, healthcare policy, and the military. Or to put it another way.. who do "civil servants" serve? If it's not the citizens, then we have a problem.

bsder 7y ago

> However, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, so we can't discount all of them without a merits-based examination of each hypothesis.) No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless evidence moves the Bayesian priors, conspiracy theories should be regarded as the garbage they are. I don't subscribe to the post-truth society.

staticautomatic 7y ago
What's extraordinary about conspiracies?
- oxide 7y ago
  What is ordinary about them is a better question. The burden of proof is absolutely in your ballpark here. Can you prove these aren't just crackpot theories? Do you have any primary sources or tangible evidence to support your claims?
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    Other way around. You're the one who said they were "extraordinary."
    - rmilejczz 7y ago
      In the absence of evidence of the extraordinary, it seems most prudent to fall back to the ordinary in the vein of Occam’s razor. If you see a bright flash and then a tree catches fire, do you assume it’s lightning or a deep state conspiracy?
  - nickpsecurity 7y ago
    I argued they're so ordinary and pervasive that considering that angle should be more common: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psychology_7.html#c1503021 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psycholog...
- 7y ago

4ec0755f5522 7y ago

Where I come from it's just called "government". That not every public sector worker is replaced every four years is quite ok, it's how things continue to function over time. If you use the phrase "deep state" to describe "functioning government" you are adopting the language of nutjobs and either are one or deserve to be called out as such.

bmm6o 7y ago
"Deep state" is intended to sound sinister. Brietbart coined it and it's amazing how quickly it's entered our political lexicon.

compuguy 7y ago

Most people call the "deep state" government employees (or civil servants). I honestly think that people outside the Washington D.C. area don't truly understand how much the rely on the federal government...

atombender 7y ago

I disagree. In the U.S., "deep state" is a deliberate reframing of the permanent bureaucracy to suggest that there's a faction of civil servants that make up a clandestine network working behind the scenes to manipulate or subvert democracy for their own ends without any accountability. It's not a new idea, but the use in the U.S. is pretty new, and has seen seen a resurgence in popularity since Trump — a populist whose campaign was partly based on the premise of a deep state — was elected, partly in thanks to books like "Killing the Deep state" [1]. There have existed, and there still exist, "true" deep state systems, such as the intelligence services and FSB (and related obligarch axis) in Russia, that we should be wary of. Co-opting the phrase to refer to any permanent bureaucratic structure as a deep state is needlessly reductive (and historically incorrect), and also normalizes something we should consider a dangerous aberration. It is a conspiracy theory, but it's taken very seriously by the people who use it. I recommend this [2] video for some historians' perspective. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp/1630061026 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?461976-2/deep-state-american-history https://www.c-span.org/video/?461976-2/deep-state-american-h...