I’ll eventually get around to discussing the Trump administration. Because this issue is so emotionally charged, however, it might be helpful to start with a less controversial analogy.
At the end of 2018, the Fed announced that it was likely to boost interest rates several times during 2019. In fact, they cut rates on three occasions. Were their intentions thwarted by a “deep state”?
The answer is clearly no. Rather, the Fed is under enormous pressure to “follow the market”, to set policy rates at a level close to the underlying equilibrium interest rate, which changes over time. On any given day, they have discretion as to whether they follow the market. But over long periods of time, a decision to ignore the market will produce severe economic problems and ultimately lead to a loss of Fed independence.
I suppose you could call the market a sort of “deep state”, but it’s clearly not a Deep State in the sense of a secretive conspiracy to control the course of events. Each trader is just trying to make some money.
The political equivalent of the market is the zeitgeist, the general sense of what sort of policies are sensible. Over at TheMoneyIllusion, I recently did a post pointing out that presidents were far less powerful than most people assume. I used the example of President Trump’s recent decision to bring troops back to Syria.
One commenter pointed out that Trump gave the order to bring the troops back to Syria:
I agree with your larger point that Presidents powers are overrated, but I don’t see how this article is an example of that. In the fifth paragraph of the article, it specifically says:
“Separately, several hundred other troops, some with armored Bradley fighting vehicles, arrived in Syria from Iraq and Kuwait under a subsequent order from Mr. Trump”
The President made both orders, the order to withdraw and the order to put troops back in. It’s an example of Trump using his powers erratically, not that he doesn’t have power.
In my view, this is analogous to claiming that because the Fed determines the fed funds rate on any given day, we can think of the Fed as determining the path of interest rates over time.
I certainly agree that presidents (like the Fed) have some power, some policy discretion. But I also believe that people underrate the extent to which their actions are circumscribed by the zeitgeist. So why can’t we call this mysterious “zeitgeist” a sort of Deep State?
Words matter. The term “deep state” has clear implications that go well beyond the prevailing views of various people, or the hassles of dealing with a bureaucracy. As we saw in the Syrian case, Trump did issue the specific order, it wasn’t that the bureaucracy refused to carry out his order to withdraw from Syria.
In addition, many of the Deep State theories revolve around people that Trump himself appointed, such as the heads of organizations like the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. The leaders of these organizations occasionally directly contradict Trump on questions such as whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. If that’s the Deep State, then Trump appointed its leaders.
But there are much bigger problems with the Deep State theory. The zeitgeist is much more than government bureaucrats. Trump also needs the support of Republicans in the Senate, which will soon act as jury in an impeachment trial. It’s not surprising that Trump cares about their opinions on foreign policy. Many were opposed to his decision to withdraw from Syria. On other occasions, Trump has been impacted by complaints from media outlets such as Fox News, and has subsequently adjusted his policies. And yet I rarely hear Deep State theorists complain that Fox News is part of the conspiracy. It seems that the Deep State metaphor only applies when the president’s views are altered in a direction that his supporters don’t happen to like.
Many people believe that the world is like a Hollywood movie, where evil masterminds concoct grand conspiracies. The actual world is much messier. There is no organized conspiracy to undercut Trump, rather there are a myriad of individual interest groups, some pressuring Trump to be even more Trumpian, and some pressuring Trump to be more of an establishment Republican.
All presidents face similar pressures. If Trump is being undercut by a Deep State, then all previous presidents have also been thwarted by a Deep State. But that drains the metaphor of all significance. It’s like when people say, “everything is political”. OK, then what should I infer from the statement that event X is political?
There’s another irony here. When Trump ran for president, one of his strongest arguments was that only he could tame the government. He claimed that other Republicans such as Jeb Bush were “weak”, and that America needed a strong leader that would force Congress to do his bidding. In fact, even with the GOP controlling both houses of Congress, Trump was completely unable to get Obamacare repealed. You could argue that this is because health care is a tricky issue. But he couldn’t even get the GOP controlled Congress to fund a wall on the Mexican border, even though that was a signature issue in the election.
We now know that this was all just empty rhetoric. Trump does have a more forceful personality than Jeb Bush, but Bush would have gotten a tax cut through the GOP Congress and would have appointed two conservatives to the Supreme Court. And Bush would have failed in many other policy initiatives, just as Trump has failed.
Happy Thanksgiving!
READER COMMENTS
E. Harding
Nov 28 2019 at 3:21pm
I do agree with you that, at least in current America, the Deep State (i.e., an established group within the power centers that exists regardless of who is elected) is relatively powerless compared to the President on certain issues. The Trumpian “Deep State” is very different from a typical Democratic one. The Trumpian “Deep State” is picked by conservative activists, and encourages sanctions on Iran and Cuba, and is also more aggressive towards Russia, Venezuela, China, and Syria. However, Sumner, you generally seem to take a low view of the powers of the president. I do not. I think presidents can be quite important when they want to be. I just don’t think Trump wants to, for the most part. There are some exceptions -e.g., trade, siding with Turkey against the Kurds (which was a logical extension of a typical establishment impulse), communications strategy, supporting an investigation of the Bidens, pressuring South Korea to pay more money to the United States. But most of Trump’s failures as president seem, in my view, to stem from lack of will, not from any constraints on the executive power.
Daniel Klein
Nov 28 2019 at 4:06pm
Let us sustain for the purposes of my comment the following definition:
Deep state = people in government during the years of a president’s term who dislike the president and use, in ways surreptitious with respect to the president and his top administration friends, their capabilities as state operators to weaken his influence and approval, frustrate his goals, or harm or aggravate his allies. Such deep staters would naturally sometimes coordinate with one another, but the deep state idea does not postulate that all deep staters are tightly networked.
On such definition, your post would give no argumentation that there are no deep staters, except to say that some putative deep staters were appointed by Trump, which isn’t a significant point, in my view.
Nor does your post give any reason to believe that deep-state forces, on the posited definition, are no larger or stronger in the Trump years than during previous presidencies.
My definition seems to be what people mean. So, on plain language, your post simply declares that there is no deep state, without offering any explanation for why we should believe that there is no deep state.
In my view, the concept I posit above is cogent and relevant. As for the semantic choice of how to label it, I’m comfortable enough at present with “deep state”. There may be a better label–maybe political scientists have a term?–but I don’t know of a better label.
Tom DeMeo
Dec 2 2019 at 3:28pm
Any organization of any size will have people in it that find the judgement of that organization’s leaders questionable. However, it just isn’t particularly good for one’s career to plot against top management. Extending that subversion into a network of like minded people makes the whole premise infinitely more risky. In general, the incentives are heavily against active subversion.
This is particularly true in government, where the preference for stable employment is greater than average. Becoming a partisan actor is counter to a long, stable career and a pension.
We used to understand that federal bureaucracies were naturally risk aversive, and didn’t like that about them.
We are dealing with people and organizations, and there are lots of behaviors floating around, but we need to all be much more worried about the dangers of public servants being too willing to go along to get along. The concept of a deep state as a major force in public life is a manipulation.
BB
Dec 2 2019 at 3:50pm
Daniel,
Your definition is pretty strong. I would note that the folks who rise to a level at which they can influence the execution of policy are very competent and very dedicated to the mission of their agency. They are most often acting to benefit the goals of the agency rather than engaged in partisan politics. And it is very unlikely they are coordinating with peers at other agencies. And I think the deep state more often than not steers the administrative in constructive directions.
Daniel Klein
Dec 2 2019 at 4:13pm
Dear BB: I take your point that my definition is perhaps a bit unnecessarily strong, particularly in specifying that the deep stater dislikes the president. But relaxing that (“usually dislikes,” “typically dislikes”) doesn’t amount to a big change in my definition.
I think your comment usefully points out that we may wish to define “deep state” in a way that does not build in negative valence or pejorativeness, that is, that it does not preclude the possibility that the speaker roots for the deep state in some instances.
BB
Dec 2 2019 at 5:13pm
Daniel,
Ha. When I said “strong” I meant that your definition is “solid”, meaning “good”. I need to choose my words better next time.
Daniel Klein
Dec 2 2019 at 6:46pm
Gotcha. Maybe my notion of a “stronger” definition is a little idiosyncratic.
Daniel Klein
Nov 28 2019 at 4:07pm
P.s., Happy Thanksgiving!
Lorenzo from Oz
Nov 28 2019 at 5:12pm
The notion of the Deep State I believe came from analysing how the Islamic Republic of Iran works, where it makes sense. The elected President is explicitly inferior to the Supreme Leader and the institutions the latter dominates have more power than the institutions the former is notionally head of.
What Gorbachev was trying to do strikes me as something similar. The Leninist state apparatus would permit elections but set the range of the acceptable. His problem was that (1) almost no one seriously believed in Leninism and (2) the de Tocqueville problem of a bad regime trying to reform.
In both those cases, however, there are clear political-institutional coordinating structures you can identify.
Applying to the US or other democratic states, and it is (at best) a much murkier notion.
There are real factors that encourage some such notion. First, the administrative state has got very large and has serious accountability issues (mainly due to its sheer size, but also due to its legislative powers, which strike as fairly obviously unconstitutional, but that is not the conventional wisdom).
Second, the push to control what it is legitimate to say and how it is legitimate to say it. This comes from networks that pervade various industries, bureaucracies (corporate, non-profit, government). Calling them the “deep state” is not accurate, but there is definitely something there.
This summary of a study of political donations does show that the “cultural capital” industries (media, academe, entertain, online IT) have very high levels of political conformity strikingly divergent from other industries.
This sense of having no control and no effective say, which is palpable, in a time of great economic and social disruptions, creates fertile ground for theories such as “deep state”.
I would also point out that “structural racism” theories have, shall we say, overlapping dynamics, with the “deep state” rhetoric. They are both claims about malign forces working within structures. The zeitgeist may be working to encourage such views in more ways than one.
Scott Sumner
Nov 29 2019 at 1:11pm
Good comment. You said:
“This sense of having no control and no effective say”
I’m happy to the extent that people have no effective control over my life.
Lorenzo from Oz
Dec 3 2019 at 8:41pm
It is the sense of having no control over important aspects of one’s own life that can be debilitating.
Lorenzo from Oz
Nov 28 2019 at 6:16pm
On having a lack of control or effective say, the overwhelming majority of Americans dislike political correctness, yet, rather than winding back, it continues to march on.
That represents a form of institutionalised cultural power that is marching through bureaucracies. Calling it the “deep state” is to seriously mislabel it, but it is something, and something that matters.
Much of the rage that The Donald engenders is clearly because he flagrantly violates the attempt to control what it is legitimate to say and how it is legitimate to say it. Rage that looks increasingly self-defeating. Given that the impeachment rhetoric started before he even took the Oath of Office, it may have worn itself out three years later. (The polls suggest it might have.)
Meanwhile, the sort of institutionalised control over selection of academics that a prominent mathematician has been vilified for calling out is being replicated in various forms across bureaucracies.
Scott Sumner
Nov 30 2019 at 4:03pm
I don’t believe you are aware that Trump is essentially a criminal. There are very good reasons to oppose Trump.
robc
Dec 1 2019 at 12:14am
So just like the previous 44 office holders?
There is a difference…some President’s crimes are in line with the entrenched mindset. Some are opposed. Trump is like Jackson in that way…which probably makes them horrible people but ok presidents.
I wouldnt vote for either, but that is a different issue.
The one thing I have always liked about Jackson is ending the Second Bank of the US.
Jesse Adkins
Dec 2 2019 at 11:16pm
What crime did he essentially commit? Your response presumes this is common knowledge.
Lorenzo from Oz
Dec 3 2019 at 8:20pm
I would distinguish the rage reaction from being morally repulsed.
I thought from the start that The Donald was likely to turn out to be a disastrous “champion”. The evidence for that has, how shall we say?, not got any less.
The Donald is a symptom of deeper problems. One way or another, he will depart, but those deeper problems seem likely to continue. The danger is that his forced departure (however justified) via impeachment may make them worse.
A country where a significant demographic is suffering a loss of prospects, status, say and suffering constant ideological abuse while suffering increasing “deaths of despair” needs to do better.
Robert EV
Dec 1 2019 at 11:34am
Conservatives have their own forms of politically correct speech.
Abortion is murder; pro-life (yet pro death penalty).
Speech is likewise policed in laws requiring medical doctors to state certain things, teachers to include certain things in their teaching.
That certain left-wing politically correct speech is anathema.
BB
Dec 2 2019 at 4:01pm
Lorenzo,
It’s possible to dislike PC culture and still find much of what Trump says offensive. I would put myself in this category. Calling all people from a certain country rapists is hardly a microaggression.
Jesse Adkins
Dec 2 2019 at 11:13pm
When did Trump do that? I find that people who make this statement are being manipulated by media and cultural forces. If you are referring to his announcement speech, here is what he said:
There is a very large difference between saying “All Mexicans are rapists” and saying “Mexicans are sending people with problems, drugs, and rapists
bb
Dec 3 2019 at 11:26am
Lorenzo,
It wasn’t a long speech. I watched in full at the time and read the text you provided in full just now. I also recall him putting more emphasis on certain words. Your reading of what he said is very generous. I don’t feel that I’m being manipulated by the media. But in fairness, let me rephrase:
From : “Calling all people from a certain country rapists is hardly a microaggression.”
To: “Saying most people who come to the US from a certain country are rapists is hardly a microaggression.”
I think this is a fair reading of what he said, and I find it very offensive. And I don’t consider myself to be PC.
Benjamin Cole
Nov 28 2019 at 8:54pm
I disagree with this post.
There are lots of reasons to regard the US military apparatus as a global guard service for multinationals, although one so well entrenched it has developed some of its own imperatives and privileges.
That is one element of what I think can be called a Deep State.
On a less dramatic level, the US maintains a Department of Agriculture, also deeply entrenched, and also operating largely beyond the review of the ordinary citizen. That is a perhaps more benign example of a Deep State operation.
One might say that parts of the Deep State are not so much nefarious as unaccountable. No citizen has the time to review in detail the Department of Agriculture or any of the other federal departments, let alone City Hall.
However, the Deep State in matters of military and foreign policy does perhaps have regrettable consequences, as might be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or the annual consumption of 1.2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money.
Mark Z
Nov 29 2019 at 1:50am
Bureaucracies often have “zeitgeists” very distinct from – and contrary to those that dominate the general public or elected officials, which I think is what creates the illusion of conspiracy, particularly since they’re unelected. But I don’t think it renders the concept empty to say “the deep state” thwarted all presidents. It’s not a meaningless claim to suggest that a cadre of unelected bureaucrats run the country according to their own designs regardless of who is president. The big mistake is that it treats ‘the bureaucracy’ as more monolithic and deliberate than it is. Every president is bound to have policy positions that run contrary to some department’s self-assigned raison d’être, likely miring his ambitions in that area.
James Q. Wilson stressed the importance of an agency’s internal culture and sense of its general aims in determining how it behaves. Agencies will tend to struggle against policies that go against those, or will handle poorly tasks it’s employees view as outside of its domain. I don’t think I’d call that either a conspiracy or a zeitgeist. It’s just what happens when your tools have minds of their own, and you’re not allowed to replace them.
Scott Sumner
Nov 29 2019 at 1:13pm
I think you greatly overrate the power of bureaucracies. What about the courts? What about Congress? What about business and labor unions? The media? Bureaucrats are just one of many influential groups.
Mark Z
Nov 29 2019 at 10:25pm
I’m not claiming they’re more powerful than any particular group, just that they’re more powerful than they’re ‘supposed to be’ in theory as the mere implementers of policies made by elected officials. The media and unions aren’t part of the government; they are only influential – with respect to public policy – in their capacity to influence other influential groups, like elected officials, judges, bureaucrats, or the electorate.
SamChevre
Dec 3 2019 at 10:43am
I think this is the best definition of “the deep state”-bureaucracies with their own agendas, only somewhat influenced by elected officials. I would add that the organizations these bureaucracies interact with are also effectively part of the deep state–both sides are repeat players, and often share mindsets and goals.
A good example is the relative influence of the Solomon Amendment (a law, but opposed by the “deep state” of education bureaucrats and their counterparts) and the “Dear Colleague” letter (not even a formal rule, but strongly supported by the same “deep state”.) One got minimal compliance without really changing much of substance, the other had a dramatic, system-wide impact.
Christophe Biocca
Nov 29 2019 at 10:20am
There are also times where bureaucracies actually behave in conspiratorial ways:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/Redacted-July-2014-CIA-Office-of-Inspector-General-Report.pdf
An agency spying on the very senate committee tasked with reviewing their (mis)behavior is pretty “deep-state”, if you ask me. In that case the administration’s appointee was likely aware/responsible, so the split is more between the executive/legislative branch than bureaucracy/executive.
David Henderson
Nov 29 2019 at 1:45pm
I agree that that’s a good example of the Deep State at work.
robc
Dec 1 2019 at 12:15am
1 example is all it takes to prove its existence.
Mitchell Langbert
Nov 29 2019 at 4:47pm
Some of your points seem to overlook the possibility of informational asymmetries and divergent utility functions between principals and agents. Such phenomena occur throughout business, government, and other economic relationships. Also, economists and media tend to emphasize immediate, direct, and short-term social welfare effects with long-term, indirect effects, and third-party effects. Informational asymmetries and clouded information can and often do contribute to the welfare of specialized and elite economic actors. For example, an elastic money supply may be more beneficial to urban Americans than to rural Americans, more beneficial to commercial bankers than to industrial workers, and more beneficial to mergers and acquisitions brokers in investment banks than to most commercial bankers. Such questions are rarely discussed, nor is the equation of stock market and unemployment statistics with “the economy.” Whether the run of auto mechanics and medical doctors is somehow less saintly than the run of Washington bureaucrats and Fed officials is an interesting hagiographic question.
sty.silver
Nov 30 2019 at 5:50am
Even though you talk about Trump in connection with the deep state in this post, I think you’re missing the biggest and most obvious point. The people who think that there is an intellectual elite controlling the government in some meaningful sense (which I think is what “deep state” cashes out at, if it cashes out at all), were mostly predicting that Trump would not be elected in the first place, because the intellectual elites don’t like someone like him. My sister was one such person. Only after he won was the goalpost moved. To an honest Bayesian, the fact that Trump won at all has to be strong evidence against the deep state theory.
To my shame, I actually took the deep state theories seriously before the election. To my credit, I stopped doing so after the election. That is what updating on evidence should look like.
Scott Sumner
Nov 30 2019 at 4:04pm
Good comment.
Nick R
Dec 1 2019 at 5:45pm
Seems to me you make the simple mistake of assuming that if a “deep state” exists, it must be all powerful and able to dictate the outcome of every election and political struggle. If you take Dan Klein’s definition, there’s no contradiction between a Trump win and the existence of a “deep state”, or widespread opposition to his policies and programs, within government agencies. They don’t “control” everything, they just have strong influence on the implementation (or not) of laws, regulations, and policies.
Todd Peckarsky
Nov 30 2019 at 3:28pm
I agree with Daniel Klein’s definition of deep state (above). Based on this definition deep state exists today (FBI, Justice, State, et.al.) as never before. No evidence of tolerance of bureaucrats working to undermine Obama.
TMC
Dec 2 2019 at 11:29am
Agreed. Klein’s definition is the one I see about 90% of the time. You shouldn’t need to redefine a term to make your point. Deep state isn’t about total control, but about influence. It even happens in corporations, where a lower but trusted person or group can slow things down to where nothing gets done on a project.
Comments are closed.