Have you heard of the “Deep State,” the cloak-and-dagger cabal of puppeteers who pull the strings of the American government? If you’ve listened to Vivek Ramaswamy, QAnon Shaman, or Donald Trump’s ex-staffers, you probably have. According to them, malicious actors within the federal bureaucracy are covertly disrupting the MAGA mission and America’s destiny.
Depending on who you ask, they may be card-carrying communists, Satan-worshiping wizards, or both. Either way, this proposed network has become the preferred rhetorical bludgeon of right-wing populists, though it’s really a recoating of a tried-and-true trope.
Change precedes and incites conspiracy. In 1960, hardline protestants argued that JFK was unelectable because a Catholic candidate was subject to the will and whim of the Pope. Just as then, the destabilizing force of multiculturalism nourishes rank paranoia.
And just as then, populist messaging allies with and veils elite interests. True, many self-described opponents of the “Deep State” oppose it on cultural grounds. They see the administrative state as the predatory apparatus that forces abortion, critical race theory, and secularism on American communities. However, this narrative has quickly been endorsed by the GOP’s economic partners, who hope to roll back health, environmental and national security regulations for the sake of their private interests. These actors endanger the bureaucratic institutions that protect our common welfare and the needs of the least advantaged against plutocratic greed. Recognizing this, we must ask if the public outcry against the “Deep State” is truly grassroots or a product of boardroom meetings at the Heritage Foundation.
Their “Deep State” is usually conceived as a monolithic and inherently malicious personality with a cloudy command over the entire federal system. It is also explicitly predisposed against the Trump campaign and its satellites. Accepting this pedagogy, conservatives like Ramaswamy argue for a policy of rip and tear: dismantle the Department of Education, replace independent civil servants with political appointees, and give the President unlimited fiat over executive operations.
Instead of pondering about clandestine cells, we would be actively faced with a partisan state that serves at the behest of a dictator. Such a state, or more accurately, a feudal kingdom with a court of jesters, would be unacceptable to the American public but is perfectly in line with the rhetoric of the people opposed to the “Deep State”.
But even if the proposed solution is inconceivable, is the problem still there? Does the “Deep State” exist? If our litmus test is simply if bureaucratic agents can go against the will of elected officials, then the answer is yes, and that’s a good thing.
For example, the FBI can investigate any politician with relative freedom and the Federal Reserve can set interest rates without submitting to the behest of officials who would do anything for their electoral preservation. These checks are generally informal and are subject to change if elected leaders wish to; still, they are accepted because they preserve stability and check the ever-growing power of the President. Essentially, our “Deep State” greases the wheels of a modern democracy.
However, if your definition of a “Deep State” is a bureaucracy that is run by biased operatives with a directly partisan vision, then it does not exist. Keep in mind that the same FBI that raided Mar-a-Lago for documents investigated President Joe Biden on the same issue. The very same bureaucracy publicly probed Hillary Clinton’s emails and is bringing the Democratic mayor of NYC to court, right in the heat of election season. It seems absurd to argue that this “Deep State” is hellbent on dousing the MAGA crusade.
And this bureaucracy is impersonal and pluralistic, with an expressive diversity of opinion. Its agencies check each other and limit individual discretion and overextension. Through this framework, the federal bureaucracy and the countless, thankless Americans who compromise it, take on the great responsibility of steering a modern government whose interest is not just the maintenance of the law but also the promotion of well-being. We are indebted to it, and cannot let demagogic balderdash disgrace it.
Still, some critiques of the bureaucracy are reasonable and serious, although I would still caution against them. We should be opposed to a bureaucracy that is completely independent of elected officials, the direct manifestations of popular sovereignty. That would make our democratic values a facade, no different than military juntas and theocratic courts that run “elections” in other countries. However, this is incomparable to America because both electoral campaigns still determine and enforce large-scale agendas that are increasingly at odds. A “deep state” would imply that these have no relevance.
Another criticism is that the degree of public oversight is insufficient, and this may be true. If it is, the solution is not to replace it with a completely unaccountable patronage network but to expand congressional investigatory power and internal checks and balances. Then, given its merits and alternatives, America should remain an administrative democracy, with both partisan and nonpartisan decision-making. Of all governmental layouts in the public debate, that form is most capable of creating a free and fair society.
