Comment by rrggrr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rrggrr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Key question is not, is there a "deep state". The question is this... does the deep state have US National interests at heart, or are they another special interest group pursuing their own interests. Several ways to tell:

- Where do/did suspected private sector "deep state" players invest? In the US or abroad.

- Whom do/did they lobby for or represent in the private sector.

- Who do they associate with.

The criticism in some circles is that suspected deep-state members are too close to certain countries (eg. Saudi Arabia).

There are criticisms leveled that suspected deep-state members are either compromised by foreign powers, or they have compromised US officials, and journalists.

I am all for accountability and an infrequent but meaningful shake-up and reset of political influence and power. But the realpolitik bottom-line is that intent and effectiveness matter more than process or accountability. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think John Podesta, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Soros or Facebook is the "deep state". What matters is the NET result on US national interests at home and abroad.

Who decides what the "national interests" are? Are there even such things?

One thing I know: the things politicians and talking heads in the media often bandy about as being "in the national interest" aren't things in my interest.

Things like waging war on countries that didn't attack the US. Or waging the War on Drugs. Or bailing out the banks. Or the US alliances with certain dictatorial states and human rights abusers. Fuck that. I'm not interested in that. I don't think these benefit the US either.

People bandy about the term "national interest" as if it's some kind of objective standard which we all agree on. But that completely ignores the many diverse and often conflicting interests of the hundreds of millions of people who are the citizens of the United States.

What these so-called "national interests" really are are the interests of those in power. That's why the things I say are in the national interest don't matter, but the things they say are in the national interest do.

So I'm not sure how useful it is to judge the actions of the "deep state" members by whether they're serving the "national interest". That's letting them make the rules to their own game.

Indeed - it's a term with a nebulous, vague and malleable definition that sounds good to people without any real specificity attached. That's why politicians and pundits love to use it.

Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.

Whenever I hear 'the American people' I inwardly cringe.

Is there a reason you dislike us?

Is there a reason you would mis-interpret that comment on purpose?

Obviously not. But the way it gets bandied around as if every politician speaks for everybody is something fairly unique to America. I've never heard a European leader (at least, not in recent times) speak out loud like that. And if they did it would make me cringe just the same.

Are you counting the UK as European? Because British prime ministers do this all the time. They get 55% of the house of commons on 40% of the vote and 25% of the electorate, and then proclaim "the people have spoken!".

Hm, never noticed that but I'll pay more attention. And yes, that is cringeworthy too.

The people have only spoken if a > 50% portion of those eligible to vote actually vote and all of them agree.

In that case you might make such a statement, and even then that leaves room for 49% (a) not to vote and (b) to disagree and whoever would make such a proclamation would have to qualify their statement to that effect. But it is of course so much easier to claim a mandate.

is 'the American critters' better?

No, because it still implies that whoever speaks speaks for an absolute majority of the electorate (so > 50% of those eligible to vote, not those who actually voted).

Given how many people simply don't bother to vote such statements are simply not true.

The National Interest is pretty clearly defined each time the countries economic data is released. Because without acceptable employment, balanced trade, and a manageable budget you've got nothing. No money for social justice, for national defense, and no place for politicians to pay themselves and their friends ... except your savings account. So, the National Interest is easy to measure if focus on the foundation, not the fixtures.

No, this is not the key question. The entire point of democracy is to let the people choose their leaders and who they believe should have power. To accept unelected, unaccountable, and unofficial leaders as having power over that of the democratically elected branches is to welcome the death of democracy in America. The American people chose their leader, and now, for better or for worse, he has to be allowed to actually lead. To allow any other outcome is a complete subversion of the entire democratic process.

America is a democratic republic. Or simply, more republic than it is democratic.

I don't see how that refutes my point. Most people will agree that we have a democratic process for a reason. The existence of institutions outside of the democratic process that have power over our democratically elected institutions undermines this. This has nothing to do with word semantics about what "democracy" means, or how that word applies to America.

It really depends on what leverage people outside the democratic process have on folks inside the process. If I can coerce government into actions the benefit me, actions destructive to the general welfare, then democratic process is deeply broken.

That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college. The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue. The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.

It's almost as if the framers didn't invent the Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc.

>That is NOT the point of our democracy. The people have power every two years where congress and 1/3 of the states are concerned; and distant power every four years as they vote for electors to the electoral college.

You don't think that during a congressman or president's term, they need to at least appear to have acted in the best interests of their constituents, or risk losing their next election? Doesn't this give the people some amount of power over the people they elect during their term?

>The people have little power where Congress is concerned, less where the President is concerned, and none where the Judiciary is at issue.

Presidential candidates often include supreme court appointments in their campaign promises, and it's implicit that they'll fill other judiciary appointments with ones that align with their values. You don't think this is an example of elected officials being beholden to their constituents? If a president appointed to the supreme court a judge that didn't align with the values of his constituents, wouldn't it reflect poorly on him and his party?

>The Federal Reserve, FTC, FBI, etc. are likewise far removed from the will of the people. Its almost as if the framers had very little faith in the people to govern themselves.

Right, well, how is having less transparency and accountability going to give more power to the public? Doesn't that just exacerbate the problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com