4 ms·

Regardless of the terminology, the supposed "deep state" is often a fill-in for one's own personal misunderstanding of institutional momentum and basic function

by badRNG 5y ago

Regardless of the terminology, the supposed "deep state" is often a fill-in for one's own personal misunderstanding of institutional momentum and basic functions of the government. "The Government" isn't really a single institution, but a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum guiding the direction they move in. It's critical to note that these institutions may have interests that harshly conflict with one another. Even the intelligence community, insular as it is, cannot be thought of as a monolith, but as various institutions with various priorities, some which conflict with the interests of other government institutions. When the government does something we dislike politically, or does something we don't understand, it's "the deep state" or "the shadow government" which betrays a deep misunderstanding of what the government is. There's no central, shadowy cabal controlling the affairs of "the government" from behind the scenes, the various institutions that comprise the government maintain momentum and do what is in furtherance of their particular interests.

kortilla 5y ago
You’re projecting your own interpretation of “deep state” onto a straw man and then tearing it down. J. Edgar Hoover was a perfect example of what people are talking about with the deep state. You can claim that’s just “institutional inertia”, but it’s still some unelected official with massive power wielding it in nefarious ways.
imbnwa 5y ago
Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is one of the few pieces of media that gets this right vis-a-vis conspiracy being conflated with the loosely coupled nature of government whose components are sometimes adversarial even in the face of external threat
dundarious 5y ago
"Deep state" is used extremely often to mean something non-centralized, and in a sense, aligned with what you describe as "a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum". The reason it's a useful phrase is that much of that momentum was built in completely undemocratic and unaccountable ways, by groups that are illegitimately secretive and deceptive in their activities, and who feel free to use extreme means such as torture and terrorism. It's a very imprecise term covering bureaucratic norms and blindspots, to unsanctioned domestic and international terrorism, so it's not really useful except as shorthand with ideological bedfellows, so-to-speak, and you're right that it's often used to mean "the government guys I don't like but am too lazy/ill-informed to describe". But OP mentioned Gladio -- I think that's context enough for this thread. Do some reading on the topic (beyond Wikipedia) if you haven't already, and you might get a sense of what this non-centralized deep state can do. And I didn't make it clear, but I brought up the North et al "shadow government" as an example far on the small-scale end of the spectrum of meaning of "deep state/shadow government". It _was_ a centralized shadowy cabal doing a now-documented conspiracy. People argue about how much authority they "seized" and how much was delegated by Reagan (and how much capacity he had to delegate much of anything), but regardless, it was not democratic to illegal go around Congress. What I've described as the "deep state" is the more common usage, and it's on the "amorphous, non-centralized, competing institutions, largely free of any democratic accountability" end.

by badRNG 5y ago

kortilla 5y ago

You’re projecting your own interpretation of “deep state” onto a straw man and then tearing it down. J. Edgar Hoover was a perfect example of what people are talking about with the deep state. You can claim that’s just “institutional inertia”, but it’s still some unelected official with massive power wielding it in nefarious ways.

imbnwa 5y ago

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is one of the few pieces of media that gets this right vis-a-vis conspiracy being conflated with the loosely coupled nature of government whose components are sometimes adversarial even in the face of external threat

dundarious 5y ago

"Deep state" is used extremely often to mean something non-centralized, and in a sense, aligned with what you describe as "a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum". The reason it's a useful phrase is that much of that momentum was built in completely undemocratic and unaccountable ways, by groups that are illegitimately secretive and deceptive in their activities, and who feel free to use extreme means such as torture and terrorism. It's a very imprecise term covering bureaucratic norms and blindspots, to unsanctioned domestic and international terrorism, so it's not really useful except as shorthand with ideological bedfellows, so-to-speak, and you're right that it's often used to mean "the government guys I don't like but am too lazy/ill-informed to describe". But OP mentioned Gladio -- I think that's context enough for this thread. Do some reading on the topic (beyond Wikipedia) if you haven't already, and you might get a sense of what this non-centralized deep state can do. And I didn't make it clear, but I brought up the North et al "shadow government" as an example far on the small-scale end of the spectrum of meaning of "deep state/shadow government". It _was_ a centralized shadowy cabal doing a now-documented conspiracy. People argue about how much authority they "seized" and how much was delegated by Reagan (and how much capacity he had to delegate much of anything), but regardless, it was not democratic to illegal go around Congress. What I've described as the "deep state" is the more common usage, and it's on the "amorphous, non-centralized, competing institutions, largely free of any democratic accountability" end.