That not every public sector worker is replaced every four years is quite ok, it's how things continue to function over time.
If you use the phrase "deep state" to describe "functioning government" you are adopting the language of nutjobs and either are one or deserve to be called out as such.
It's also far from a monolithic group of people with a similar point of view.
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.
Most bureaucrats and technocrats are just like any other human beings: often partisan, selfish and not decisively more able to distinguish a "good" decision from a bad one.
At best statecraft is the ultimate field for The Iron Law of Bureaucracy https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The word "bureaucrat" is just a catchall term for the people who work for the government and can't possibly be important or decent people because they don't occupy any mental space in your head.
"People who work for the government" are "civil servants" (or "public servants")
A bureaucrat is a member of an "administrative system governing a large institution".
Each civil servant has some power when it comes to do what/how he wants to. On this behalf bureaucrats and (even more) technocrats are among the most powerful.
> soldiers
A soldier must obey (nearly) blindly, becoming a mere instrument for brass. Brass bureaucrats/technocrats have their own political agenda, and many adjust their actions accordingly.
> police officers
Most aren't bureaucrats. Theoretically they enforce laws, even if they don't agree with them. In practice many adjust their actions according to their own political agenda.
> teachers
Most aren't bureaucrats. Many teach according to their own political agenda, or just guard while repeating state propaganda.
> firefighters
Most aren't bureaucrats/technocrats. Moreover their field is not politically-loaded (nearly everyone agrees about what they have to do, and how).
The problem with using it is it has a default positive sound to it. “Civil servants” are probably working to do good, no matter the political winds.
While those in the “deep state,” these folks are agenda driven and not trying to benefit the average American.
Thus, it is hard to vilify civil servants.
"Working to do good" is an interesting phrase because it begs the question: Who's good?
Is it the citizen's good? There's not a reasonable way to approach or decide that short of elections (the ultimate form of polling), therefore whoever the citizens have elected should determine the "good."
Or alternatively, it could be their individual good and therefore irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. In that case, riches, stability, or whatever all fit the bill but are probably counter to the "common good."
Or alternatively, it could be their agency's good and - once again - irrelevant to the citizens and their wishes. As long as the agency goes on an grows, that fits their "good" but may be counter to the "common good."
And unfortunately just declaring "we all know what good is!" doesn't apply when we take just the topics of education, healthcare policy, and the military.
Or to put it another way.. who do "civil servants" serve? If it's not the citizens, then we have a problem.
Because it clearly doesn't just refer to common government workers that exist across multiple administrations.
It's the massively powerful leadership groups, political cliques, that influence agencies from the DOJ to Homeland to the FBI to NSA to CIA to the Pentagon and each military branch, and so on. They hand off ideological batons and pursue agendas across decades.
One example is the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz crew that wielded power across decades (approximately ~40 years), numerous presidencies, and various roles in and out of government. They're the Deep State personified. The Bush family was an integral part of enabling that clique although they float above it rather than swimming down in the muck where the political schemes are fleshed out (like deciding to invade Iraq and topple Saddam at some point in the future, back in 1991, as Wolfowitz & Co. did). They're able to pursue political agendas in and out of roles, through influence and connections in the government and private sector. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were able to wait out the Clinton Presidency (which was only interested in no-fly zones and sanctions in Iraq) and then finally pursue their Iraq invasion with the friendly George W Bush admin. That's the sort of big ideological pursuit and time carry that only powerful pieces of the Deep State can successfully pull off.
No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Unless evidence moves the Bayesian priors, conspiracy theories should be regarded as the garbage they are.
I don't subscribe to the post-truth society.
Can you prove these aren't just crackpot theories? Do you have any primary sources or tangible evidence to support your claims?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/the_psycholog...
1) Humans suck at keeping their mouths shut
2) Most conspiracy theories posit excessive competence (itself extremely rare) that somehow defies all the weird things that reality can throw at you and make things fail.
Most "conspiracies" had plenty of evidence even at the time--people chose to ignore it because it benefited them. See: Epstein, Weinstein, Cosby, etc.
So, real conspiracies that people don't know about do exist--but they are tremendously rare.
Such as this person clearly needing "mental help" because they implied collusion/corruption. Nobody asked or expected anyone to believe anything based on their statement, rather we are asked to believe it must be insane to make such a statement.
How do you go to war with a deep state? What do you do? It sounds like pure delusion
It's like if you are drunk, and you successfully drive your car through an obstacle course. You're still drunk!
It's not a new idea, but the use in the U.S. is pretty new, and has seen seen a resurgence in popularity since Trump — a populist whose campaign was partly based on the premise of a deep state — was elected, partly in thanks to books like "Killing the Deep state" [1].
There have existed, and there still exist, "true" deep state systems, such as the intelligence services and FSB (and related obligarch axis) in Russia, that we should be wary of. Co-opting the phrase to refer to any permanent bureaucratic structure as a deep state is needlessly reductive (and historically incorrect), and also normalizes something we should consider a dangerous aberration.
It is a conspiracy theory, but it's taken very seriously by the people who use it.
I recommend this [2] video for some historians' perspective.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Deep-State-Fight-President/dp...
[2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?461976-2/deep-state-american-h...