4 ms·

>Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"

by syshum 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)
xxpor 5y ago
It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.
- syshum 5y ago
  There is a bit of unrealistic faith there... even if a president knows how to turn the knobs the bureaucracy has its own beliefs and positions, and can absolutely slow things down to where it is impossible to make the change if the bureaucracy does not agree with the change So sure it may not be outright insubordination, but the result is the same They can also use other levers to ensure any they dislike fails, etc.... This is the deep state, where if the bureaucracy does not like a policy they can and do resist it.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Seems like that'd be a good incentive to not align your political axis around educated vs uneducated. As for simply installing uneducated people in the bureaucracy instead, that's how you end up with the Soviet Union.
    - syshum 5y ago
      I am not sure where educated vs uneducated comes into play here. I know the media seems to play this up and it seems you buy into this narrative. Also I resist the idea that attaining a degree, any degree, qualifies as "educated" and anyone that has not attained a degree is "uneducated" that type of credentialism leads to all kinds of negative outcomes, and false assumptions. Which is the metric the media uses to label the electorate is "educated" or "uneducated". There are a huge number of people that have high levels of informal education, and there are people that have degree's that one can objectively argue are uneducated by any reasonable measure. So over all I reject completely on different levels the entire premise of your comment

>Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"

by syshum 5y ago

>Turns out there is a fourth branch: Bureaucracy yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense"

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> yes that is also known as the Deep State, which the grand parent claims is "nonsense" "Deep State" implies more than acknowledging the bureaucracy. It's the claim that the bureaucracy is unresponsive to, or even controlling over, our elected leaders. (And presumably, the courts, though I don't tend to see that part addressed in common tellings.) If you don't believe the latter bit, using the term "deep state" unnecessarily tarnishes the credibility of your argument. (Federal bureaucracy is a more neutral term.)

xxpor 5y ago

It responds perfectly well to people that understand its knobs. But when you elect a guy who's never been in a government position before, is it really any surprise he can't bend it to his will? It's like if you pulled someone random off the street and made them CEO of a Fortune 500. Do you think the entire org would just turn on a dime and listen to them? No chance.

syshum 5y ago
There is a bit of unrealistic faith there... even if a president knows how to turn the knobs the bureaucracy has its own beliefs and positions, and can absolutely slow things down to where it is impossible to make the change if the bureaucracy does not agree with the change So sure it may not be outright insubordination, but the result is the same They can also use other levers to ensure any they dislike fails, etc.... This is the deep state, where if the bureaucracy does not like a policy they can and do resist it.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Seems like that'd be a good incentive to not align your political axis around educated vs uneducated. As for simply installing uneducated people in the bureaucracy instead, that's how you end up with the Soviet Union.
  - syshum 5y ago
    I am not sure where educated vs uneducated comes into play here. I know the media seems to play this up and it seems you buy into this narrative. Also I resist the idea that attaining a degree, any degree, qualifies as "educated" and anyone that has not attained a degree is "uneducated" that type of credentialism leads to all kinds of negative outcomes, and false assumptions. Which is the metric the media uses to label the electorate is "educated" or "uneducated". There are a huge number of people that have high levels of informal education, and there are people that have degree's that one can objectively argue are uneducated by any reasonable measure. So over all I reject completely on different levels the entire premise of your comment