You could say the workers of such a permanent bureaucracy are at least united in the belief in the benefits of there
being such a permanent bureaucracy; and more specifically, in the benefits of "non-partisan" bureaucracy, bureaucracy that isn't a catspaw of the party in power. (As opposed to a political spoils system, where each new administration comes with its own Civil Service.)
And, because of that implicit endorsement of non-partisanship as "how the job gets done", these bureaucrats tend to also be considered technocrats: people who evaluate policy mostly on how the ROI works out for "the people" or "the state", rather than in how it figures into any particular political narrative, or into their own "courtly favour" with the administration.
The label of "technocrat" then tends to put the workers of this bureaucracy into natural opposition—political-rhetoric-wise—with populist politicians, who as a rule evaluate policy by how it "plays" with the man-on-the-street (who has no knowledge of statecraft), and who tend to ignore what a policy will (or won't) actually be likely to accomplish. This opposition carries whether any given bureaucrat has any actual underlying opposition to the current populist sentiment or not.
So there's at least one other thing these bureaucrats will tend to agree on: to the degree that there is, in a political "era", a populist fervour in the country, bureaucrats will be unilaterally hated by the man on the street, due to the rhetorical manipulations of populist politicians.