Defining the ‘deep state’

Intro

The term ‘deep state’ was not coined by President Trump, but he popularized it by invoking the expression to fend off criticism and deflect attention from gaffes.

The power of the term is that it’s cloaked in mystery – an implication rather than a known reality. It creates the impression of an invisible evil attempting to undermine the president from within.

The term’s mysterious nature relieves those who use it from having to offer hard evidence of their claim. This means they can’t technically be proven wrong, though it hardly vindicates them either. So it’s up to the discretion of Americans to determine its credibility.

The less dramatic explanation is that ‘deep state’ conveys the idea that federal employees in a given presidential administration don’t always share the same political views as the president. This concept though, sans sinister intentions, is typical of every presidential administration.

So how should we think about a ‘deep state’?

The sheer size of the federal government makes consensus on political issues a practical impossibility

The federal government is a massive organization that includes a 2.1 million civilian workforce (non-military/non-postal). Only 4,000 (0.2%) of these positions are political appointments – people that come in and out of an administration at the request of a president and are more likely to share his ideology. But most others live and work in Washington across multiple presidential administrations and may well differ in their views. This isn’t anything unreasonable, especially knowing that even people of the same political party often differ in their views yet co-exist. Blind allegiance, on the other side of the spectrum, would be a much larger concern.

We do, however, expect federal employees, regardless of political views, to carry out the law according to congressional statute at the direction of the president. So the question becomes – is the nature of federal work such that employees who hold differing views from the president are unable to fulfil their duties?…

Most federal jobs are apolitical

Career bureaucrats and diplomats have built a lifetime of expertise outside of the traditional realm of politically-sensitive topics. Many presidential candidates build campaigns around notorious but nuanced ‘hot button’ issues like Medicare for all or lower tax brackets. Few of these would impact, for example, employees at the US Department of Agriculture or the Department of Housing & Urban Development. Moreover, they wouldn’t even impact most employees at HHS or the IRS. In some ways, this too is a function of the size and scope of the federal government; its extensive reach often goes places untouched by more popular political battles.

The truth is most federal employees sincerely care for their craft and take pride in their careers. In this way, the often-thankless work of implementing policy across federal agencies transcends politics.

Is there validity to it then?

The concept of the ‘deep state’ goes back decades and has been used by republicans and democrats for different reasons. The assumption that a powerful, unelected bureaucracy is exerting unconstitutional control over a democracy resonates with many.

Some level of healthy skepticism can exist to keep a democracy in check, but it can easily skew to the irrational.

Most often, I suspect, these concerns arise from recognizing valid concerns relating to the expansion of federal power and wrongly attributing it to faceless federal employees. There are numerous instances (some minor, others less so) in history where the federal government has indeed acted beyond its constitutional mandate, which can infringe on individual rights and freedoms for a period of time. For example, increased surveillance measures, such as unwarranted wiretapping, in the wake of 9/11 is reasonably pointed to as an overreach. But it’s important to distinguish between these instances – typically enacted by federal employees but directed by the president, his appointees and (hopefully) by Congress and justified by America’s security interests – from a coordinated coup in the bureaucratic ranks.

There will always be a natural tension between security and freedom. In dangerous or uncertain times, the balance tends to shift towards security (e.g. post-9/11 or the coronavirus response). But our system of government balances the risk of an overbearing state by directing Congress to hold federal agencies accountable through rigorous oversight.

Can we really trust our institutions to prevent a ‘deep state’?

To be candid, assessing whether a ‘deep state’ exists is not an area for which private citizens have visibility. So entertaining the existence of one can easily spiral into conspiracy theories, which are neither accurate nor useful.

Our best recourse is to elect trustworthy officials to Congress. We as voters control Congress, and Congress controls the federal bureaucracy. So when the electorate focuses its attention on electing candidates with integrity and a firm understanding of the legislature’s role in safeguarding our institutions, Congress will improve. When Congress improves, proper accountability of the federal bureaucracy will ensue.

What can the president do?

A president who is a strong leader will not try to hunt down those in the administration who dissent. Rather, a strong leader will inspire people across the political spectrum to work for the good of the country. When a president calls people names (i.e. part of the deep state) from a position of power when they disagree, it divides us against our own. Leadership through fear and hostility is leadership at its worst.