The Deep State and its real motives

[Ziggurat]

No, that wasn't what you said. You said "government". Do you agree with what I said with regards to the government?

Oh, for FSM sake. Yes, a constitutional government must protect rights, even against the wishes of the majority.

But we aren't talking about that, so drop it.

As for the so-called deep state, how do you know their motives?

Because most people are motivated by self-interest. Is that seriously a mystery to you?

 

[Belz...]

Oh, for FSM sake. Yes, a constitutional government must protect rights, even against the wishes of the majority.

But we aren't talking about that, so drop it.

Zig, I didn't mean to be confrontational. You DID say "government" so I thought you were talking about that!

Because most people are motivated by self-interest.

If that's on general principle, why mention it as if it's a feature of the deep state that's different than elected officials, who presumably also put their own interests above those of the electorate?

 

[Ziggurat]

If that's on general principle, why mention it as if it's a feature of the deep state that's different than elected officials, who presumably also put their own interests above those of the electorate?

Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.

 

[Belz...]

Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.

Sure, ok. But you've always had appointed members of the machine, such as (in some countries) senators, supreme court justices, and the like. I'm sure you'll agree that they can't all be elected, but somehow they're expected to do their jobs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, ok. But you've always had appointed members of the machine, such as (in some countries) senators, supreme court justices, and the like. I'm sure you'll agree that they can't all be elected, but somehow they're expected to do their jobs.

Which is why I said,

In fact, it's an almost unavoidable agency problem.

We cannot eliminate the problem. But we can, and should, reduce it.

 

[Belz...]

Which is why I said,


We cannot eliminate the problem. But we can, and should, reduce it.

Ok but how do you propose we do that? Elect judges and other government employes? Or just reduce the size of the state? What would be your take on this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok but how do you propose we do that? Elect judges and other government employes? Or just reduce the size of the state? What would be your take on this?

Plenty of judges are elected. But no, I'm not suggesting making every government job an elected one. Even as a purely practical matter, it's not feasible.

Reducing the size of the state is absolutely one way to help. The smaller the role of government, the less any problems with government matter. Getting rid of public sector unions is another (even that liberal saint FDR recognized the threat they represented), which we could do without shrinking government. And making it easier to fire government employees is another (see the whole VA fiasco).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"Deep state" is a conspiracy nutjob term, by and for conspiracy nutjobs. Stop trying to normalize it by assigning spurious mundane meanings. Alex Jones isn't talking about an agency problem in which long-term inertia and employees' interpretation of their job is suddenly called into conflict by the election of a radical. There's already a perfectly adequate term for that: "bureaucracy." Literally, "rule by the office."

No, by "deep state" Alex Jones means a secret cabal of pedophiles who control the media and apparently direct all anti-Russian sentiment. Those are very different things.

 

[Belz...]

Plenty of judges are elected. But no, I'm not suggesting making every government job an elected one. Even as a purely practical matter, it's not feasible.

Reducing the size of the state is absolutely one way to help. The smaller the role of government, the less any problems with government matter. Getting rid of public sector unions is another (even that liberal saint FDR recognized the threat they represented), which we could do without shrinking government. And making it easier to fire government employees is another (see the whole VA fiasco).

This has been a way-too pleasant conversation, Zig. We gotta make up for it, next time.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Deep state" is a conspiracy nutjob term, by and for conspiracy nutjobs. Stop trying to normalize it by assigning spurious mundane meanings. Alex Jones isn't talking about an agency problem in which long-term inertia and employees' interpretation of their job is suddenly called into conflict by the election of a radical. There's already a perfectly adequate term for that: "bureaucracy." Literally, "rule by the office."

Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.

 

[Ziggurat]

This has been a way-too pleasant conversation, Zig. We gotta make up for it, next time.

I'm sure we will.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.

Alex Jones didn't coin it, but he's using it correctly. It's always meant a secret shadow government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

The pedophile thing is new, though.

 

[Travis]

Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.

You think it is a bad thing for bureaucrats to push back against radicals?

I suspect if a true leftist radical was elected pushing for the elimination of private property (and such) you would be hoping the agencies would be pushing back.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because elections help align the interests of elected politicians with those of the electorate. But there isn't a similarly effective mechanism to align the interests of unelected bureaucrats with the electorate.

Congressional oversight is the mechanism. Having been for a small part of my life an un-elected member of the executive branch (commissioned officer in the Navy) I was for a few years in an office that did one dozen formal responses to Congressional Inquires that began when someone wrote to their congressman that "X" was wrong or "X" was unfair.

Every so often, you'll find that the Congressional inquiry discovers a wrong being done, and corrected, and other times you'll find that the inquiry discovers that the unelected are in fact doing their jobs by the congressionally approved regulation / law.

How well that functions at the state level I won't try to comment upon, as I do not have detailed experience with that.

I stand by my initial response that the Deep State topic that Travis has broached belongs in the CT forum.

 

[Brainster]

Alex Jones didn't coin the term. And as Michael Bolton said in Office Space regarding his name matching the singer, "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks." The fact that Jones is abusing the term doesn't mean I don't get to use it rationally.

But it does mean that folks who know about Alex's version of the term will start to wonder if you're a kook. I assume I understand what you mean by the term; the deep state is the entrenched bureaucracy that resists change. It's not some organized conspiracy, but rather the effect of thousands and thousands of individual bureaucrats protecting (and enlarging) their turf.

But Alex's meaning is a whole lot darker; the Deep State is a coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings to defend and expand their evil agenda. It's crazy, but it's a whole lot more interesting than reality.

 

[Dr. Keith]

“They’re fighting hard to shut us up because, why?” Cernovich asked. “What is the common theme, Alex?”
“We’re not pedophiles."

For some reason this just keeps getting played out as a round of Jeopardy! in my head:

Final Jeopardy Category: Movies

Answer: Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur

Question: Who are three people who are not pedophiles?

I'm sorry Cliff, that's not the question we were looking for.

Be that as it may Alex, those people are not pedophiles.

 

[Trebuchet]

I actually know who two of those three are. Had to look up Lucille.

 

[Toontown]

It is my contention that a "deep state" cannot logically exist. Here is my primary prohibitive observational evidence. Where am I going wrong?

1. A deep state would simply eliminate or silence people like Alex Jones.

2. Clinton and Trump were the two contenders for president. At least one of them would have to be the deep state choice, assuming the existence of a deep state. Are we to believe that's the best a deep state could come up with?? A short, bitchy old lady and/or an unstable geriatric narcissist? One of them?? Really? Then how in monkey hell did this obviously incompetent deep state manage to take over the world's most powerful country?

See? The "deep state" is logically impossible. Glaringly obviously impossible.

Unless the "deep state" is nothing more than a mindless conglomeration of random power grubbers who have managed to worm their way into positions of power, mostly by a combination of obsessive persistence aided by blind, staggering luck. In which case "deep state" is a misnomer.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

the deep state doesn't ignore the will of the voters because it has to uphold constitutional protections, it ignores the will of voters because it substitutes its own narrow interests for those of voters.

But what if the Deep State manages to trick most voters into believing that its interests are their interests (eg. fewer financial regulations, tax cuts for the rich, more prisons, stronger military)? Then the only ones who are aware that their interests are being substituted are those who aren't sheeple drinking the kool-aid, ie. conspiracy nuts.

But Alex's meaning is a whole lot darker; the Deep State is a coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings to defend and expand their evil agenda.

His ideas about who they are and what their agenda is may be crazy, but the idea of a 'coordinated effort with the New World Order pulling the strings' may not be. Individuals might just be protecting and enlarging their own turf, but they could still share common goals that encourage them to coordinate their efforts.

There is the fantasy "Deep State" where Obama and Soros are giving marching orders to civil servants who are then conspiring to stop the Trump agenda.

For sure this is a fantasy, but the idea that wealthy individuals are working with politicians 'behind the scenes' to give 'marching orders' to civil servants is not. The real Deep State is not actually the State at all - it is private citizens worming their their way into positions of power via lobbying or elections, then forcing civil servants to enact their toxic agendas. Trump and his cronies are the Deep State!

 

[ponderingturtle]

How is reference to the deep state not a topic for the conspiracy theory forums? You are in the wrong forum with this, Travis.

It is like with Pizza gate, sure it is a conspiracy theory but when it is endorsed by major political figures like the national security adviser it becomes main stream politics as well.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227