3 ms·

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 wo

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.
adventured 7y ago
> If that term just refers to veteran government workers Because it clearly doesn't just refer to common government workers that exist across multiple administrations. It's the massively powerful leadership groups, political cliques, that influence agencies from the DOJ to Homeland to the FBI to NSA to CIA to the Pentagon and each military branch, and so on. They hand off ideological batons and pursue agendas across decades. One example is the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz crew that wielded power across decades (approximately ~40 years), numerous presidencies, and various roles in and out of government. They're the Deep State personified. The Bush family was an integral part of enabling that clique although they float above it rather than swimming down in the muck where the political schemes are fleshed out (like deciding to invade Iraq and topple Saddam at some point in the future, back in 1991, as Wolfowitz & Co. did). They're able to pursue political agendas in and out of roles, through influence and connections in the government and private sector. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were able to wait out the Clinton Presidency (which was only interested in no-fly zones and sanctions in Iraq) and then finally pursue their Iraq invasion with the friendly George W Bush admin. That's the sort of big ideological pursuit and time carry that only powerful pieces of the Deep State can successfully pull off.

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.

adventured 7y ago

> If that term just refers to veteran government workers Because it clearly doesn't just refer to common government workers that exist across multiple administrations. It's the massively powerful leadership groups, political cliques, that influence agencies from the DOJ to Homeland to the FBI to NSA to CIA to the Pentagon and each military branch, and so on. They hand off ideological batons and pursue agendas across decades. One example is the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz crew that wielded power across decades (approximately ~40 years), numerous presidencies, and various roles in and out of government. They're the Deep State personified. The Bush family was an integral part of enabling that clique although they float above it rather than swimming down in the muck where the political schemes are fleshed out (like deciding to invade Iraq and topple Saddam at some point in the future, back in 1991, as Wolfowitz & Co. did). They're able to pursue political agendas in and out of roles, through influence and connections in the government and private sector. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were able to wait out the Clinton Presidency (which was only interested in no-fly zones and sanctions in Iraq) and then finally pursue their Iraq invasion with the friendly George W Bush admin. That's the sort of big ideological pursuit and time carry that only powerful pieces of the Deep State can successfully pull off.