
As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America - kawera
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?pagewanted=all
======
randomname2
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-
Fin...](http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf)

~~~
Chathamization
> 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
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.

~~~
ENTP
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.

------
cperciva
While I think the stated concern about a 'deep state' is rather exaggerated, I
think there is a legitimate concern about friction between the executive and
the bureaucracy. There is broad tradition of non-partisan civil service taking
orders from the partisan government of the day across the Western world, and
it exists for two very good reasons: If the civil service is partisan, worthy
public servants will lose their positions upon any change in government; and
if the civil service is partisan, governments will not trust them.

We saw this in Canada under the Harper government in the early part of this
decade, with civil servants actively undermining the government and the
government retaliating with gag orders; it didn't take long before the
government, knowing that any research they asked for would be leaked in the
most damaging way possible, abandoned evidence-based governing in favour of
seat-of-the-pants policy-making.

Now, what took a decade in Canada seems to have happened in a matter of weeks
in Washington; but the fact remains that when the civil service is overtly
opposed to their political masters, good government becomes impossible. It's
one thing to have a bungling fool in charge of the ship of state; it's quite
another to have a bungling fool who knows his crew are in the process of
staging a mutiny.

~~~
angry_octet
With respect, I'd have to disagree with your portrayal of Harper as an honest
toiler, betrayed by revanchist public servants at every turn, and forced by
circumstances to take harsh but fair measures.

Harperites didn't like the facts, and did their absolute best to hide them.
The woolly headed policy making was conducted in defiance of the facts. When
the objective facts were highlighted by public servant, in full concordance
with the espoused values of their organisations, the conservatives got nasty.

Harper didn't like ridicule, and he proved what a small man he is when he had
his satirist sacked. A remote wildlife ecologist public servant writing funny
rhymes! What a coward to manufacture a dismissal.

As to Trump: he might think it a mutiny, others would characterise it as
obeying the law and understanding the Constitution.

~~~
67726e
It would appear your analysis is marred by personal politics, as are most
analyses of Trump.

~~~
Ensorceled
I _voted_ for Harper (at least the first time) and would have to say it's a
pretty accurate analysis.

------
grandalf
Consider all the officials who have effectively been attacked by American
intelligence agencies: Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Haight, Gen. Flynn, Hillary
Clinton, and Trump!

All this is quite recent, and in each case there have been explanations about
how discoveries about the person were made _coincidentally_ as part of other
investigations, etc.

Establishing a false causal trail is one of the most basic strategies of using
deep surveillance.

The recent leaks about Flynn and the Trump dossier seemed more nakedly
political than the others, but leaks like this have always occurred, it's just
unusual for them to be aimed at the current president and his cabinet.

The funny thing is that if you wanted to sabotage the US system of global mass
surveillance, this is probably how you'd do it. Every story about monitored
email accounts or phone calls illustrates how deep it goes, and the intrigue
created by the allegations about Russia make the stories incredibly viral.

~~~
foxhedgehog
The funnier thing is that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the
stories about Russia may - gasp - be true! No need to reach for your tinfoil
hat here, friend!

~~~
grandalf
> preponderance of evidence

What evidence are you referring to. As far as I know none has been made
public. There have been a lot of accusations and a few rumors but (gasp) zero
evidence of hacking or any other troubling links w/ Russia.

~~~
altcognito
There are plenty of troubling links with Russia There are at least 5
individuals (Manafort, Cohen, Sater, Page, Flynn, Tillerson, Stone) whom were
directly working with the Russian government and have received effusive praise
from them. Combined with a very narrow focus on removing sanctions (without
any talk about the violations of sovereignty of Crimea/Ukraine) and a nearly
tireless praising of Putin and the Russian government, there are plenty of
troubling links.

~~~
shard972
How is any of this evidence that the trump administration is working with
Russia?

The connections alone don't mean a whole lot and the rest you have is just
words. If trump was truly in the can for Russia, why wouldn't he just say bad
things about putin to score more political points and distract people from his
true motives?

Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to
further his tangible goals?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to
further his tangible goals?

From what I've heard, Putin is now thinking twice on whether he even _wants_
to be associated with the Trump administration. He may have believed that men
like Manafort or Bannon would keep Trump under control, only to find that his
new "allies" in the White House are a chaotic mess.

~~~
shard972
Wait, what is the bannon connection to Russia? That's new to me.

Also, we would be led to believe that putin spent all this time and effort
getting his boy in and now is just going to give up on him within a month?

I would ask for a source on that but considering it's nigh impossible for the
west to get reliable intel (That dossier was quite something) out of Russia
I'm not sure how much it would matter.

~~~
nradov
The rumour is that Bannon believes he can convince Putin to back the USA in a
confrontation with Iran. Bannon sees Iran as a bigger threat and is trying to
engineer a conflict. (I have no idea whether that's correct, just passing on
an unsubstantiated rumor.)

~~~
mistermann
I hadn't even heard that one on reddit before, is there _any_ evidence, even
an out of context quote?

~~~
nl
The broader version that seems to be fairly accepted is that there is a
thought of realigning the US with Russia against "radical Islam" (Trump's
term) in Syria and elsewhere. It is unclear how much of this is Bannon's idea
and how much is Trump's, and unclear how much is aimed at Iran.

It would be surprising to me if Russia went along with US action against their
ally Iran, but other combinations are certainly possible. Hell, that is too -
who knows!

Here's a quote:

 _Trump and Putin spoke for one hour and vowed to join forces to fight
terrorism in Syria and elsewhere, according to the White House and the
Kremlin, signaling a potential shift in U.S.-Russian relations that have been
marked by high tension._

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-holds-calls-
wi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-holds-calls-with-putin-
leaders-from-europe-and-
asia/2017/01/28/42728948-e574-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)

~~~
grandalf
Trump has made statements about wishing to align with Russia against radical
Islam, so how can this be part of a conspiracy?

Trump said a lot of that stuff during the campaign because he likely hadn't
realized the extent of the proxy wars between the US and Russia since the wall
came down.

One of the main reasons the US invaded Iraq was to do so before Russia took
control of the region, due to its importance to the oil supply. Russia had
good relations with Saddam's regime and with Iran. When Saddam was overthrown,
many of the oil industry spoils that had been going to Russian firms were
redistributed to US (or coalition) firms.

Russia is currently helping to stoke discord in Syria and aligning with Iran
mainly to force an over-stretched US to react. For pennies on the dollar Putin
can keep the US in a middle-east quagmire, so why not do this indefinitely?

Trump may not have realized the strategic purpose that US escalation in Syria
was intended to achieve, he may have believed the PR that we were involved for
humanitarian reasons, etc. But he seems to have concluded that it was a money
pit waiting to happen with little humanitarian upside (which is a correct
conclusion, and the conclusion Russia had hoped the US would draw). HRC was
determined to signal the opposite so that Russia might stop spending its
pennies there.

For those who don't realize this, the decades-long Iran/Iraq war was a proxy
war fought between the US and the Soviet Union with both sides having the goal
of creating a dominant footprint in the middle east to keep the other side at
bay and guarantee the relative stability of oil extraction. This same goal
also causes the US to act to prevent any sort of large scale democratic
movements in the middle-east; Al Qaida began as that exact sort of pan-Arab
movement.

So if Trump is proposing a negotiated deal with Putin involving Syria and
Iran, that means he's willing to consider dividing the spoils in a way that
may harm US coalition allies (France, Germany, etc.) who also have firms that
are heavily invested in post-Saddam Iraq and some of which would likely be
displaced by a new US/Russia agreement.

Similarly, allies of the US in Europe that fear an emboldened Russia also
stand to lose if Russia gains better access to cheap petroleum. Russia, on the
other hand, is poised to take a big leap forward in economic output and also
reputation laundering. A successful negotiation with Trump could wipe away the
penalties/sanctions that Russia has faced due to Putin's brutal approach to
certain domestic issues.

So Russia's goal has been a larger presence in the middle east, a laundered
reputation, and possibly more (everyone fears it will attempt to re-annex more
former Soviet territory).

The thing that I think HRC and Obama misunderstood is that Russia is very
likely to get this whether the US wishes it to happen or not. The US (and
allies) are not in a position to undertake preemptive strikes, and so all they
can do is vilify Putin and create a massive PR campaign and pressure allies
into sanctions, etc. Meanwhile, the US can use clandestine operations to help
goad Putin into various crackdowns or overreaches that will force him to act
more like a dictator and increase the chances he will be unseated due to
domestic dissent.

Why didn't Obama intervene in the Caucuses or the Ukraine? Because the US does
not have the will to enter into conflicts like those, and certainly does not
have the will to risk nuclear conflict.

Posturing by McCain about both annexations was nothing more than a bluff, as
was HRC's sudden tough talk toward the end of the campaign. The hope was that
somehow Putin would fall for this bluff and that rabid anti-Russian public
opinion in the US would scare Putin into thinking the US might react with
force.

Seriously, this isn't going to happen no matter who is president. The question
is how long it takes and how many lives are lost in proxy wars before Russia
occupies a position of greater dominance in Europe. The Soviet Union was too
big and plagued by infrastructure problems, but Russia itself is well placed
geopolitically and has historically been a seat of wealth, culture, and
regional ambitions.

What is in the best interest of the US with respect to the negotiations (hard
or soft) that take place with Russia over the next decade? I'm not sure. But
Obama (and Trump also) saw that there was a certain inevitability to it and
that it was not worth spilling too much blood over. In spite of this, Obama
carried on proxy wars in Iraq and Syria which killed hundreds of thousands of
people and caused untold suffering.

Trump has claimed that he may not wish to continue the proxy wars. We should
all be relieved. Rather than debating rumors about Russian meddling, etc., we
should figure out what is actually in US best interest over the medium to long
term and negotiate accordingly. Bluffing isn't going to work. Both Russia and
the US are willing to let lots of people die in proxy wars, but neither is
willing to engage in direct conflict, so we will either inflict another decade
of tragedy upon the victims of our proxy wars, or we will find a less violent
equilibrium.

~~~
PerfectDlite
I'd point only two _major_ errors. There are too many minor errors though.

> decades-long Iran/Iraq war was a proxy war fought between the US and the
> Soviet Union with both sides having the goal of creating a dominant
> footprint in the middle east

No. Last Soviet attempt to gain a foothold in Middle East was a failed
relationship with Egypt. Hint: War of Attrition followed by Yom Kippur War.

There was no major influx of military advisers or green men during Iran-Iraq
war.

> The Soviet Union was too big and plagued by infrastructure problems, but
> Russia itself is well placed geopolitically and has historically been a seat
> of wealth, culture, and regional ambitions.

I have a bad news for you - Russia is about the same size as USSR and it's
still plagued with infrastructure problems. And as for the culture - everybody
can see the decline in post-Soviet cultural scene, especially in Russia.

~~~
grandalf
I don't think it contains factual errors. If you could please elaborate on
what you think the errors are I'd appreciate it (so I can learn more about
specific aspects).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Iran%E2%8...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War)

------
erentz
I'm having trouble parsing the narrative of the article. It's frankly bizarre.
It seems to be implying very heavily that this leaking of the administrations
actions is bad for democracy. And that the administration is right in
attempting to consolidate more power away from agencies as a response. If the
administration doesn't like its laundry being aired in public perhaps it
should behave better. The worst part is it's attempt to somehow make a
comparison to Turkey here. Erdogan is a dictator that has seized control of
Turkey. His purging of the "deep state" was not a good thing. And it is an
offensive stretch to suggest the 110,000 teachers, police, judges and other
civil servants caught in that purge constitute some kind of evil "deep state".

~~~
cperciva
The comparison to Turkey is indeed quite odd. What's even stranger is that
American media persist in referring to a "failed coup attempt"; to the
contrary, Erdoğan has completed a very successful coup d'état.

~~~
toyg
To be fair, Erdogan's was something of a "countercoup" (assuming, of course,
that he didn't somehow prompt the initial attempt himself; which is possible,
but unlikely). We absolutely agree that the result was the same as an outright
coup.

~~~
cperciva
_Erdogan 's was something of a "countercoup" (assuming, of course, that he
didn't somehow prompt the initial attempt himself; which is possible, but
unlikely)._

Sure. But I'm a bit skeptical of the "initial coup", given that analysts at
the time were saying things like "this is the most pathetically incompetent
coup attempt I've ever seen"; I avoid using the word "countercoup" since it
implies the conclusion that there was in fact a real coup attempt to which
Erdoğan responded.

------
alexandercrohde
Am I the only one who thinks NYTimes should be a little more explicit in
marking editorials? I'm sure among those of us familiar with newspapers it
should be clear within a sentence that this is an opinion piece, however
nowhere does the word "editorial" show up on this page and I suspect a fair
number of younger or less educated individuals may not even understand what
editorials are in general.

It helps me understand why individuals might be skeptical of newspapers when
an agenda'd opinion piece (basically a hosted blog) shows up in the nytimes
domain.

~~~
xanderjanz
This is a hard news story, not an editorial. They are reporting on comments by
global experts.

~~~
intjk
It looks like this is neither an editorial nor a hard news story, but rather a
column[1]. The difference being an editorial is an opinion piece (typically?)
representing the publication, and a column is a recurring opinion piece by
named individuals. At least that's what wikipedia says--I can never keep these
terms in my head.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-
interpreter](https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-interpreter)

------
DanielBMarkham
When Lincoln was elected, there were days he had difficulty getting from his
room to his office -- the halls of the White House were full of people who
came looking for a job from the president.

That was the old patronage system, where you elect a president and he can
appoint thousands, maybe tens of thousands of jobs. All of these jobs had one
major qualification: you had to be loyal to the president.

As much as we hate it now, for a long time the system worked well. When the
government was small, there simply wasn't that much real power to pass around,
and the U.S. Constitution was fairly clear that the president should be
directly responsible for the executive branch. Nobody else. The founders
discussed at length the idea of a complex bureaucratic system of state, like
the Europeans had. They wanted no part of it.

But as we know, once the system grew during the Civil War and afterwards, it
led to a terrible amount of corruption. Something had to be done. So the U.S.
enacted Civil Service reform, where the president is allowed and expected to
bring a bunch of partisan loyalists with him into office, but the lower levels
of the bureaucracy were to be left alone to the professionals. In this way
public opinion could have major impacts on national policy with each
presidential election -- but elections wouldn't become such a feeding frenzy
for people looking to make quick buck off the government.

Now it looks like we're seeing the endgame of the pendulum swinging too far in
the other direction: the deep state. As just some random internet dude, my
suggestion to fix it would be to assert more executive control another level
or two down, perhaps allow the managers at the next level, who are not
appointees, more power over moving people around and letting them go.

If we do it right we'll probably correct too far in the other direction, and
hopefully it'll take another dozen or so decades for yet another course
correction to be made. Sadly, however, I expect much political wailing and
gnashing of teeth during the entire process. Whether it's patronage or the
deep state, there's a ton of money and political power being fought over.

~~~
mozumder
Another option is to have department heads elected separately from the
President.

People make better decisions when the job they're voting on has a more
specific description.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I thought of that immediately after I wrote the comment.

It would work -- if the department heads were of the same party. Perhaps each
candidate could provide multiple choices for major posts and voters could
choose which one they liked on election day. But it needs to be a single vote,
and with a single clear leader at the top. Otherwise you'd have the old
Presidential/Vice Presidential system where each could be of a different
party. That's no good. That's just the deep state on steroids.

Remember the purpose of the executive is that at some point voters require
"single wringable neck" The problem is that the system is so ginormous that
there's really no way one person can be responsible for it all. Oddly enough,
the system was really still quite useful over the past several decades even
when it was too big for one person to plausibly be in charge. This is because
it provides the president as a guy you can blame when things go wrong. Our
problems? It's all because of that guy! Get rid of him and see how well we do!

So the real danger of the deep state isn't just a system run amok. It's
rubbing people's faces in the fact that this whole "electing a president"
thing is just so much bullshit. The specifics of the leaks or whether they're
in the interest of the country or not? Not as important as the long-term
damage to credibility the entire system suffers.

As the system grows it's more and more evident the reason we are supposed to
have a layered, federated system. If you can't have that single person
anymore, you really no longer have an executive. If the president can't be the
guy we blame for all this bad stuff, the Congress is ineffectual and the
courts are jammed up, then where do we go for peaceful redress of our
grievances?

~~~
mozumder
Well, for something like this, the President would probably be elected by the
elected cabinet members, sorta like a parliamentary system for the executive
branch.

~~~
shard972
As an Australian, I think a president system is much better than having
leader's you can't vote for directly and can be replaced whenever the polls
don't look great.

~~~
barry-cotter
If you want to become dictator being President is a much better position to be
in than Prime Minister.

------
uptownfunk
Never thought I'd say this but maybe Trump is right about the media. Part of
me wants to think this is real reporting but to another part of me this
screams like speculative albeit sophisticated conspiracy babble. It seems like
the times by publishing this piece are really the ones culpable in sowing
seeds of dissent and opposition in the mind of officials working for us gov.
There's a lot of things wrong with this administration but in many cases the
media is certainly not helping by amplifying the speakers on the circus.

~~~
alphabettsy
That's exactly what Trump wants. He wants to be a primary source of
information however inaccurate or incorrect, but lets be honest of "the media"
because its a very wide spectrum that includes the likes of the NYTimes, WSJ,
as well as Breitbart and the Daily Caller.

It wasn't long ago that many Trump supporters were reading articles likes this
"Obama drops the pretense - He aims for confiscation of private arms, not
‘control’ of guns" ([http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-
oba...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-obama-aims-
for-confiscation-of-private-a/))

~~~
just2n
So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect?

They so frequently use half-truths, lies by omission, complete removal of
context, and in many cases report on things without substantiating evidence or
credible sources, that it's hard to think they have much value at all. And
it's not just one outlet, it's all of them. Sometimes they'll be accurate when
the story fits what they want to say, and when it doesn't they will either say
nothing at all (see: Sweden, Germany, France) or they'll grossly misrepresent
things.

The recent Felix Kjellberg incident is a fine example of what I've seen happen
non-stop over the past 4-5 years. Every single week it's yet again the same
exact thing, this time with a different story. It has never relented.

If the choices are: direct from the source which may or may not be accurate
100% of the time, or via a media known to be incredibly dishonest and
inaccurate at an alarming rate, it's really not a hard choice here for me.

~~~
alphabettsy
"So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect?" Where did this
come from? I absolutely do not support inaccuracy by the media, nor did I
suggest that I did. I do recognize that most all publications and writers
exhibit bias, which is why it is important to get information representing
multiple points of view.

Considering you likely have little or no access to most primary sources of
information, like everyone else, I don't see how you have any choice other
than to rely on their coverage combined with your own critical thinking and
research.

Also considering that an incredible number of Donald Trump's statements are
easily verifiably false, I don't see how he could be considered a primary
source of anything other than his own words.

As far as "The recent Felix Kjellberg incident", What exactly do you mean?
Some publications condemning his actions while others rush to his defense?

------
deviate_X
The "Deep State" is just inertia.

It is only because America has elected a +radical president has this become
somewhat apparent. But the inertia is democratic as it represents the
democratic process and accumulation.

It is especially important when you have edge-case of a president wining, but
with 46% of popular vote and 26.5% of the potential vote.

The "Deep State" being the actual institutions of law and governance is
actually what makes democracy sustainable.

~~~
adventured
There's nothing radical about Trump's policies at all. In fact, he's hardly
right of center on most things.

1) He's strongly in favor of keeping the welfare state and all the entitlement
programs. Left loves it.

2) He wants to expand the military. Right loves it.

3) He's pushing a mixture of common right and left policies, including lower
taxes and regulation, infrastructure spending. He's promoting American jobs /
workers first (thus unions have applauded several of his efforts, such as
killing the TPP), which used to be a left platform.

4) He wants to scrap the ACA, right loves it. But has talked about either
expanding Medicare to all people as the solution, or kicking it down to the
states to run their own ACA equivalent programs, both of which the left would
be in favor of vs the worse conservative alternative of a total wipeout.

5) He's in favor of a strong border. This is something both Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama were supposedly in favor of. Bill Clinton talked openly about the
need to stop illegal immigration because it was taking American jobs etc.

6) He ran on a platform of putting an end to the US proliferation of
entanglement overseas, particularly when it comes to wars in the middle east.
George W Bush ran on a platform not so different.

Radical? Where? There isn't anything even remotely radical about Trump other
than his personality type. His policies are rehashes of decades of policies
espoused by other Presidents.

Whether Trump won 44% or 47% or 50.1% of the popular has absolutely nothing to
do with the deep state's response to him. The deep state operates entirely
independent of the electorate.

None of the three Clinton runs for Presidency achieved over 50% for example.
With only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, and an openly anti-military bias,
Bill Clinton didn't have these kinds of problems with the deep state in his
first term.

~~~
wfo
An assault of against the entire legitimacy of the judicial branch is hyper
radical. Naming the news media the enemies of the American people is hyper
radical. Illegally ordering legal permanent residents be detained without due
process is hyper radical.

Some of his policies aren't radical, sure. He is a populist. The fact that one
time he said he likes the welfare state and one time he said he didn't, or
that one time he said he wants to scrap ALL of ACA and then some other time he
described all of the policies in ACA and said they were good and wouldn't go
away doesn't mean he's moderate, it means he's incapable of telling the truth
because his mind changes too quickly to have a consistent position. But
regardless, the president doesn't set policy, congress does. He leads the
country in words and action, acts as the head of state diplomatically and
oversees enforcement of the laws which the legislative and the judicial branch
decide for him.

In that sense as the leader of our country he is the most radical president I
can think of since FDR who was a wartime leader and was rapidly approaching a
dangerous permanent control of the country.

------
Elrac
I don't find the article's "deep state" narrative very convincing. The message
I got from the article was, "there's a shadow government and it's using dirty
tactics to subvert the normal operations of our elected representatives
(including the POTUS)."

That view would be a lot more legitimate, IMO, if we had a functional
government trying to carry on normal business for the benefit of the people.
What's actually happening looks to me to be very different, and exceptionally
so! An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be the new
technical manager with zero technical background who was hired because he's
the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally challenged but makes
up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and flamboyant temper
tantrums.

If you're (e.g.) a developer and your new manager is objectively incompetent
and deeply disturbed, if he jeopardized important projects and the company's
bottom line (that you depend on for a living), no one would be surprised if
you voiced your concerns to the manager's superior. In this analogy, the
manager's only superior is the public.

~~~
mjolk
> That view would be a lot more legitimate, IMO, if we had a functional
> government trying to carry on normal business for the benefit of the
> people... An analogy that should ring a bell with many HN regulars would be
> the new technical manager with zero technical background who was hired
> because he's the CEO's nephew, who happens to be borderline mentally
> challenged but makes up for it with defiant corruption, extreme nepotism and
> flamboyant temper tantrums.

A lot of hyperbole gets thrown around, but do you legitimately believe the US
government is no longer "functional" and run by "borderline mentally
challenged" people?

You don't have personally like the newcomers to the top levels of the US
government, but you're deluded if you think they're not capable people (or
good at playing a game) acting within a system that's been built for hundreds
of years.

~~~
Elrac
The US government has been increasingly dysfunctional for several years now.
I'd like to remind you that Congress has actually shut down the government's
operations on more than one occasion, tried to blackmail the Executive with a
government default, has passed a record low number of laws and refused to
review Obama's appointment for the vacant SC position. Congress, for practical
purposes, went on strike to attempt to ensure that Obama would not be able to
accomplish most of his goals - in effect punishing the US people for political
purposes.

This isn't getting any better with the change of POTUS - now the Democrats are
determined to stalemate the new Executive in any way possible. This isn't
healthy, this is destructive, and it's certainly not functional. It's
disgraceful!

You're wondering whom I'm calling "borderline mentally challenged?" That would
be Donald Trump, about whom many professional psychologists have voiced
concerns of mental competency. He hasn't yet given the US public any
indication that he's even as smart as George W. Bush or more knowledgeable of
world politics than the average 5th grader.

The rest of the team is a mixed bag with regard to competence. Certainly Nancy
DeVos has shown no indication of capability for her position, and the rest of
the team has definitely been selected for ideological proximity to D. Trump
rather than capability. Disturbingly, the EPA appointee is a declared enemy of
the EPA, the energy guy is a global warming denier, and the national security
guy is someone who has publicly announced his intention to overthrow the
state. His pick for AG was previously disqualified for being an outspoken
racist. Similar (dis)qualifications apply to numerous other of his picks.

I'd say, au contraire, that a considerable amount of delusion is required to
believe that a team this poorly matched to their jobs will be effective
improvers of the nation's status.

~~~
mjolk
> Congress, for practical purposes, went on strike to attempt to ensure that
> Obama would not be able to accomplish most of his goals - in effect
> punishing the US people for political purposes.

Or, if acting in good faith, disagreed that his goals would be good for US
people. More laws and actions do not mean the people are better off.

> You're wondering whom I'm calling "borderline mentally challenged?" That
> would be Donald Trump

Thank you for your response, but we're going to just fundamentally disagree
and while I'm fine with "in my opinion...", the level of hyperbole involved is
enough to make me sit this one out. A "borderline mentally challenged" person
would not be able to navigate his way to the position of POTUS.

~~~
Elrac
I'm happy to let opinions stand as such, but in your support of Trump's mental
competence you're denying reality.

Sarah Palin was McCain's pick for VP, and thus well on her way to "having
navigated her way to the position of POTUS." And if you feel that the
candidate who couldn't name a single newspaper she read was mentally competent
to be POTUS then that's an opinion of yours I won't be able to share.

------
tim333
It's unfortunate to see 'deep state' talk coming up in the US. I associate it
mostly with Erdogan in Turkey and his attempts to change from elected leader
to dictator for life. The deep state and Gulenist labels are used to attack
and arrest or fire anyone who opposes that. I hope it doesn't go that way in
the US.

------
booleandilemma
I feel like I'm seeing this term "deep state" everywhere now, and I never saw
it before two weeks ago.

I feel like it's the newest political buzzword after "fake news".

~~~
Cacti
It's been around for decades, but it was always a term used by the left,
similar to "fake news." One of Trumps more effective (and disturbing) tactics
in the past year or two has been to co-opt this language and redefine it in
basically opposite terms by simply repeating it ad nauseum.

Now instead of having a debate about the allegations and evidence that people
in this administration have broken numerous laws, we're discussing the
_intentions_ of the "leakers" themselves, rather than the rather substantial
amount of publicly sourced and substantiated evidence that suggests people
have a right to be concerned.

It's like getting caught stealing a piece of candy and blaming it all on your
friend because they ratted you out.

------
rdlecler1
Trump won with around 60 million votes in a country that has a population of
around 340m people. Legally he may have the authority to do what he wants but
he still has to work within a system of people who did not vote for him and
who does not share his strong policies. I see this as a feature, not a bug.
There's a saying that if you people don't earn a fair wage they'll find a way
to pay themselves. I think a principal is at work here.

------
bencollier49
From the article: "Though American democracy is resilient enough to resist
such clashes".

That remains to be seen.

------
grzm
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13666325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13666325)

------
dpatru
The leaks serve several good purposes: \- They help remove questionable public
officials. \- They show government officials what it's like to have no private
conversation (strong encryption). \- They show both the public and government
officials that government cannot be trusted to keep secrets. (Even the
President is unable to prevent his own government from revealing detrimental
secrets.)

~~~
rrggrr
There is some truth to this. However, instead of talking about the disturbing
content in the leaked DNC and Podesta documents, the media only wishes to
report on how this authentic content came to light. The deflection and bias is
staggering. The lesson may be you can get away with anything if you have the
media in your pocket.

------
mustaflex
I'm trying to follow the events in the U.S.A, I'm not american, it feels like
that the "deep state" or "establishment" or whatever you want to call it, is
laying the groundwork to kick Donald Trump out of the white house. Good luck
to you guys anyway.

------
Angostura
It seems to me that the best way to encourage the development of a 'Deep
State' is to exclude important stakeholders from things like the National
Security Council.

When denied access to the formal structures, what are these people meant to
do, seriously?

~~~
thehardsphere
Who is being excluded? If anything the complaint I keep reading is that too
many people are being added who have no business being there (e.g. Steve
Bannon).

~~~
cavanasm
Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence are no
longer permanent members of the Principals Committee (the actual subgroup that
has people so wound up); effectively, they only get to attend meetings when
they're invited (the wording is something along the lines of 'whenever their
expertise is a topic of the meeting'). Since this is the National Security
Council, people think it's weird that they'd have any meetings that wouldn't
be in the purview of the military or intelligence communities.

~~~
shard972
Sean Spicer did explain this as a situation where both of those members were
not excluded from meetings and could attend any meeting they wanted to, just
that they were no longer required to attend every meeting.

As long as that's true and so far there hasn't been any reporting to say it
isn't, I don't see the issue.

------
gdubs
This is why you appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation. To
grossly simplify: either the leakers are dangerous to democracy, or they're
patriots blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. If we find that Flynn lied
to the FBI and that he acted inappropriately with regard to sanctions, then
the leaks certainly feel like an act of a whistleblower.

If there's nothing to the allegations, an investigation would vindicate the
administration.

The fact that everyone is stalling on an investigation just raises questions.

------
bwb
It is hard not to think there is a decent chance we are headed for a civil
war, or rise of authorism.

------
cpr
Paul Craig Roberts explains the stakes here:

[http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/02/18/stakes-trump-
us-p...](http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/02/18/stakes-trump-us-paul-
craig-roberts/)

------
jister
Interestingly this has been discussed here -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpaDEkkOcpM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpaDEkkOcpM)

------
jonloldrup
The article says: "[in Egypt], “the deep state is not official institutions
rebelling,” he said, but rather “shadowy networks within those institutions,
and within business, who are conspiring together and forming parallel state
institutions.”"

I don't understand how the article can make this statement. The statement
clearly outlines a Conspiracy Theory. As we all know, Conspiracy Theories are
false - a priori. How can it be legitimate to concoct Conspiracy Theories for
other nations, when, simultaneously, the very notion of (a national scale)
conspiracy is seen as being equally as impossible as perpetual motors or
faster-than-light travel? Double standards? What's going on?

------
nepotism2016
"Deep state" requires influence from outside, Russia? I really much doubt it.
Turkeys deep state goes back all the way to Gladio setup by NATO after WWII

~~~
kome
> "Deep state" requires influence from outside

no it doesn't. the definition is really about a state in a state...

~~~
nepotism2016
Oh yeah...the countries listed in that article, which one has a state in state
without any influence from outside?

------
arca_vorago
"So is the United States seeing the rise of its own deep state?"..."Not quite,
experts say, but the echoes are real — and disturbing."

Wrong. The deep state not only is already in place and entrenched deeper than
almost anyone could imagine, but it's power is at unprecedented levels. The
problem is that the general public is being wowed by all the operation
mockingbird CIA outlet propaganda to the point that they aren't seeing that
right now there is being waged a very real war inside those deep recesses for
who gains the power. I do have to say that the media is even bringing the
phrase up those is amazing.

The originator of the term "deep state" and I believe "deep politics" is the
former Canadian diplomat turned educator, author, poet, Peter Dale Scott. He
really is the prime standard in studying the ds because he is very academic in
his pronouncements and tries very hard to follow the evidence and not over-
exert his positions. eg. he mostly sticks to deductive logic, with smatters of
inductive logic. Now, the other authors worth reading on this matter are
Michael Parenti, Webster Tarpley, Mike Lofgren, David Talbot, John Perkins,
Jim Marrs, G Edward Griffin, Anthony Sutton, and Douglass Valentine.

Following the thread, one tends to come to one particular author though, that
outpaces and outshines the others, because he not only gained unprecedented
access to the historical documents behind one of the main groups pulling the
deep states strings, but because he also was a well connected professor at
Georgetown, mentor to Bill Clinton, and his writing is extremely heady:
Carroll Quigley.

According to most of these authors, the deep state rose to power primarily in
63 via the JFK assasination (and of course they used a MKUltra/Artichoke
victim Sirhan Sirhan to get RFK too), and I would posit that most of them
would agree we have barely had a president not completely beholden to them
since them. Any time one tried to buck them, he was given a warning very
quickly (Reagan assassination attempt made him start playing ball, if he had
died we would have had Bush Sr. early!), and the list of similar happenings to
presidents goes on and on.

So, the deep state exists, so who are they? Factions and subfactions hiding
within: "NSA, CIA, DIA, NSC, UN, NATO, FEMA, Round Table Groups, DHS,
Bankers/Financial elite, Defense Companies, Big Oil/Gas, Big Pharma, Think
Tanks, Other tax exempt foundations, K-street, The infiltrated media."

What has enabled the deep state? The NatSec Act of 47, The patriot act, the
NDAA, 501c3s, COINTELPRO-esque operations against dissidents, abuse of
national security as a get out of court free blanket, the black market funding
of black budget operations, blackmail as a standard modus operandi on
important people, and more than anything the abuse of compartmentalization in
the intelligence groups, which creates a situation where top level comprimise
can be hidden from everyone but still direct actions and moves in the interest
of the deep state.

What are the goals and motives of the deep state? That one, I just have to say
I don't know. I have suspicions based on all the contextual clues, but I will
leave those for later.

The number one thing you could do research on that will really open your eyes
to the deep state is this:

Continuity of Government (CoG)(Shadow Government) plans (which we primarily
found out about in the Iran contra hearings), which were written in the 1980s
by Rumsfeld and Cheney along with participation by some of the Iran Contra
characters like Oliver North.

CoG is the key which can unravel the deep state. According to Peter Dale
Scott, we are in a hidden constitutional crisis primarily centered around this
issue, and CoG may still be in effect by way of the continual declerations of
national emergency (Bush proclamation 7463, EO 13223, 13224, were the starting
declerations, later continued with NSPD-51 in 2007, and Obama has continued
them). These continual declerations have been in violation of (b) 50 U.S.C.
1622.

Supposedly, if some information Scott has is true, "the provisions of the
National Emergencies Act have now been rendered inoperative by COG. If true,
this would indicate that the constitutional system of checks and balances no
longer applies, and also that secret decrees now override public legislation
as the law of the land."

This is the true issue of the deep state in the United States of America, and
is one of the most important issues of our time.

~~~
selimthegrim
Peter Scott has the attention span of a six month old puppy.

~~~
arca_vorago
Really? Care to back up your statement with any concrete example?

------
youdontknowtho
I meant to say that I was looking forward to reading it and here it is. Lucky
me. Not sure why that's a downvote? You can't just like something and say,
yay! it's that thing?

EDIT: My spellinh isrterrible.

~~~
dang
Shorter comments are more prone to misunderstanding—e.g. perhaps someone
thought it was being snarky. In such cases someone else usually comes a long
and gives a corrective upvote.

The HN guidelines ask you not to post about getting downvoted though:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13686949](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13686949)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
youdontknowtho
Thanks, I will try to keep that in mind and try to contribute a little more to
the conversation.

------
george_ciobanu
There's a darker explanation than the two suggested already: that Russia
actually controls people high in the administration (possibly more than one,
including Trump) and intelligence agencies are fighting them.

~~~
puranjay
People give Russia too much credit. The narrative I've seen on Reddit lately
has been that Russia controls pretty much everything in the world.

Russia is a barely middle income country with a shrinking GDP, a shrinking
population and an ageing military.

Surprising that I've never heard a single story of Russian influence in my
country, India. Apparently, Putin and his stooges were able to infiltrate all
levels of politics and media in the rich western world, but don't give two
hoots about its more direct economic rivals in the BRICS.

~~~
int_19h
Russia is more interested in military rivals than in economic ones. If you
talk to Russians about geopolitics, you'll notice that right away: the
countries that are listed as the primary opponents are US and China, and the
reasons given are always military: US leads NATO, and China has an eye on the
Russian Far East. You'll never hear anyone so much as mention India, Brazil
etc as competitors.

And while you're correct about your overall assessment of Russia, that is
precisely why it has to resort to measures like these. It cannot compete
militarily, and it cannot compete economically, so it is left to resort to
Machiavellian devices to fight for (what it believes to be) its rightful
place, if not on the top of the pile, then at least on the top tier of it.
That's what really grates so many people in Russia, both elites and commoners
- that it _was_ a superpower, but it isn't anymore. A lot of people really,
really want it to be one again. And for them, the definition of superpower is,
"they fear us".

~~~
lambdadmitry
Thank you for a good analysis. I was going to answer along the same lines, but
you've beat me to it.

