There's considerable wisdom in your warnings here about the threat of the Trumpist "cure" to the deep state disease. But your adamant refusal to acknowledge the underlying disease is an even greater offense.
As we speak the US is orchestrating one of the gravest, most sadistic crimes of the modern era, and its politicians in near unison are threatening to all but burn down the Hague to protect its chief perpetrators, shredding any meaningful notion of human rights or international law. And there's no chance whatsoever at present to address this electorally, because the actual power centers of our deep state (ie, not mid level employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics) work tirelessly to make that impossible.
You and your David Frum/Sam Harris pals can't ignore the unfolding genocide in Gaza forever, or even laugh it off as the fad du jour of passionately deluded blue haired marxist teens. You will be forced to grapple with it seriously at some point, or else fade into the ignominy of the Ursula Haverbecks of the world. The crimes are too great, too nakedly visible to all worldwide who haven't shut tight their eyes and their hearts.
Genuine liberal democracy is a gift. Impenetrable imperial (deep) states like the modern US are enemies of liberal democracy.
The situation in Gaza and the U.S.'s role in global conflicts are undeniably important topics of discussion. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that they should be ignored or downplayed—far from it.
However, I believe there is a critical distinction to be made between addressing your concerns over U.S. foreign policy and the internal threats posed by dismantling the mechanisms of democratic governance. The "deep state" as imagined by Trumpist narratives is a fantasy that targets career civil servants and institutions that are vital for holding power to account. Yes, these institutions are imperfect and could even be complicit in maintaining systemic injustices, but hollowing them out and replacing them with personal loyalty systems exacerbates, rather than alleviates, those injustices.
Regarding Gaza and the broader foreign policy consensus, I would suggest that the career civil service is an orthogonal issue. Dsmantling the civil service or concentrating unchecked power in the executive branch is not a solution to that. In fact, it’s a dangerous step toward authoritarianism, which is even less likely to address your concerns, such as they are.
We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: addressing the legitimate critiques of U.S. foreign policy and overreach while defending the structural integrity of the democratic institutions that give us the tools to engage in such critiques. One does not preclude the other.
Finally, I’d urge caution in painting critics of the "deep state" narrative as apologists for imperial crimes. Many of us are grappling with how to protect liberal democracy from internal threats while simultaneously working to ensure that it lives up to its own ideals—domestically and globally. These are complex issues and they deserve more than binary characterizations of complicity or resistance, I think.
I've followed your work for a while and I've yet to see any indication that you take these problems seriously. Gaza is but one example, but it's about as grave an example as is imaginable, and you've said approximately four things in passing about it over the past 14 months, none of them serious.
There's considerable wisdom in your warnings here about the threat of the Trumpist "cure" to the deep state disease. But your adamant refusal to acknowledge the underlying disease is an even greater offense.
As we speak the US is orchestrating one of the gravest, most sadistic crimes of the modern era, and its politicians in near unison are threatening to all but burn down the Hague to protect its chief perpetrators, shredding any meaningful notion of human rights or international law. And there's no chance whatsoever at present to address this electorally, because the actual power centers of our deep state (ie, not mid level employees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics) work tirelessly to make that impossible.
You and your David Frum/Sam Harris pals can't ignore the unfolding genocide in Gaza forever, or even laugh it off as the fad du jour of passionately deluded blue haired marxist teens. You will be forced to grapple with it seriously at some point, or else fade into the ignominy of the Ursula Haverbecks of the world. The crimes are too great, too nakedly visible to all worldwide who haven't shut tight their eyes and their hearts.
Genuine liberal democracy is a gift. Impenetrable imperial (deep) states like the modern US are enemies of liberal democracy.
The situation in Gaza and the U.S.'s role in global conflicts are undeniably important topics of discussion. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that they should be ignored or downplayed—far from it.
However, I believe there is a critical distinction to be made between addressing your concerns over U.S. foreign policy and the internal threats posed by dismantling the mechanisms of democratic governance. The "deep state" as imagined by Trumpist narratives is a fantasy that targets career civil servants and institutions that are vital for holding power to account. Yes, these institutions are imperfect and could even be complicit in maintaining systemic injustices, but hollowing them out and replacing them with personal loyalty systems exacerbates, rather than alleviates, those injustices.
Regarding Gaza and the broader foreign policy consensus, I would suggest that the career civil service is an orthogonal issue. Dsmantling the civil service or concentrating unchecked power in the executive branch is not a solution to that. In fact, it’s a dangerous step toward authoritarianism, which is even less likely to address your concerns, such as they are.
We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: addressing the legitimate critiques of U.S. foreign policy and overreach while defending the structural integrity of the democratic institutions that give us the tools to engage in such critiques. One does not preclude the other.
Finally, I’d urge caution in painting critics of the "deep state" narrative as apologists for imperial crimes. Many of us are grappling with how to protect liberal democracy from internal threats while simultaneously working to ensure that it lives up to its own ideals—domestically and globally. These are complex issues and they deserve more than binary characterizations of complicity or resistance, I think.
I've followed your work for a while and I've yet to see any indication that you take these problems seriously. Gaza is but one example, but it's about as grave an example as is imaginable, and you've said approximately four things in passing about it over the past 14 months, none of them serious.
I urge you to imagine yourself in the shoes of Palestinians. https://youtu.be/nW5U_ZqGmZU?si=xDnXqmJuw6GJLPmw
So, Mike, are you arguing that there is no "deep state"? No blob?
That the FBI, CIA, IRS etc. act in a purely disinterested manner to promote Constitutionally acceptable ends?
That the gov't led censorship of the internet, through NGO cutouts, is just enhancing the 1st Amendment?
Really?
Even if I did believe it, which I don’t, I still wouldn't agree with bringing them all under direct political control of the president.