How the “Deep State*” Solves a Fundamental Flaw in the US Constitution
There is a fundamental flaw in the US constitution: To be effective in world affairs, a nation must have the capacity to affect long-term planning and policy. However, the constitution mandates frequent elections, leading to changes in leadership every few years, which can upset long-term plans and render US foreign policy incoherent. Thus the US has a severe disadvantage compared to nations that have less frequent changes in government.
The conflict between long-term planning apparatuses and presidents who upset the apple cart dates back at least as far as Andrew Jackson, who tilted the balance of power between the executive and other branches of government. A political party representing northern industrial interests, the Whigs, rose in opposition to Jackson Democrats, until their collapse in the 1850s under the stress of maintaining a “big tent” coalition. Abraham Lincoln again moved the needle in the direction of a strong executive, which backfired again in the subsequent administration of Andrew Johnson who failed to follow up Lincoln’s efforts. The US floundered this way until the 20th century, stumbling through an age of pure oligarchy, while largely failing to find long-term coherency. In order to become a global superpower, the US had to find a way to shore up this vulnerability.
Obviously, they succeeded. Today we can easily notice that many key aspects of US policy never really change from one administration to the next. The solution was simple: long-term policy was placed under the management of a strong bureaucracy, backed by a foreign policy establishment (think tanks, consultancies, etc.) with deep connections to the US business and financial elites. Although it is comprised of unelected bureaucrats and appointees, it doesn’t appear to behave as a single monolithic organization with a top-down command and control hierarchy. Rather, its coherency simply results from a convergence of common interests (business and financial), and the cultivation of a common culture bolstered by recruitment from a small, provincial, narrow-minded sector of society (i.e., the Ivy League sphere). While there are factions with different philosophies, and political differences, all of these fall within a narrow “Overton Window.” It simply enforced: Those having incompatible views simply do not advance up the career ladder, and are excluded from prominent platforms in the centers of power.
Over time this “double government” acquired extraordinary power. This was partly due to the general public’s ignorance of world affairs and the ease of manipulating their sentiments via the mass media apparatus, the latter of which is owned and controlled by the same oligarchy that supports the foreign policy establishment (and who dominantly benefit from its prescriptions). Their power crystallized with the advent of state security agencies (CIA, FBI, and other alphabet agencies), which are opaque and unaccountable by virtue of having a thick veil of state secrecy (best of all, they get to decide what is kept secret). Meanwhile, the close relationship between the military and industry dating back to the Civil War deepened as a consequence of their close collaboration in WW2 (when factories were converted for the war mobilization effort). A number of other factors gave the US an opening, including collapse of the British Empire, geographical advantage of escaping destruction in WW2, and becoming the world’s dominant creditor and reserve currency.
A necessary trait of long-term planners is their ability to persist through multiple administrations, even as the party in power changes. The Dulles brothers were the poster boys of this model, failing to win elected office but always scoring key roles and later powerful appointments from the Wilson to the Eisenhower administrations. They exported their model to Germany, Japan, and other “allied” nations (though it took different forms in each country). They championed aggressive foreign policy, supporting business-friendly regimes abroad (often right-wing dictatorships), overthrowing left-leaning governments in dozens of nations, using right-wing death squads as geopolitical tools, and so on. Today’s poster child is Victoria Nuland, another Ivy Leaguer who held key appointments from the Bush II through the Biden administration, and has played key roles in everything from Iraq to Ukraine.
This is no “secret cabal.” It isn’t a “conspiracy.” It exists in plain daylight, very little of its basic functions are concealed. We know some of these people, they are in the public eye, their faces are constantly on TV, their stories are in the news. Their policy ideas are widely distributed and publicly available. Dulles, McNamara, Cheney, Kissinger, Brzhezhinski, Barr, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Brennan, Albright, Rice, Pompeo…these are just some of the recognizable names of the long-term policy establishment, across a range of factions and philosophies. The Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantic Council, Rand Corporation, Project for the New American Century, Hoover Institution, etc., are just a few of the well-known “think tanks” that served as forges of long-term US foreign policy. There are many more names and players, this is only scratching the surface. Their ties extend to Wall St, Ivy League universities, multi-national corporations, corporate mass media, and more…representing the most powerful factions and interests in the US. To see the corporate, banking, and Ivy League connections, simply visit the website of a group like the Brookings Institution and check out their list of Trustees…it is all there, available for anyone to see. Again, their coherence is derived from their common interest, fundamentally business and financial, without that glue this confluence and consolidation of power in the hands of these unelected people would not be sustainable.
Elected officials, including presidents, senators, congresspeople, they are all expected to go along with the program, and not to interfere in long-term planning. Politicians who toe the line, play their assigned roles, and recite their talking points enjoy ample support, campaign donations, positive media coverage, etc.. Politicians who challenge their power find resistance in proportion to the threat they pose to the status quo, ranging from negative press (e.g., McGovern, Dean, Sanders), election rigging/interference (e.g., Trump), blackmail (e.g., Hart), and perhaps including assassination (e.g., JFK, RFK). Sometimes their own people even rise to high elected office, as was the case with George H.W. Bush.
Unfortunately, the “double government” solution to the US’ constitutional weakness of frequent elections has created a new problem. Today the US faces the problem of having much of its policy controlled by an unelected technocracy with deep ties to corporate power. It doesn’t really matter which candidate wins an election because the policy remains the same regardless of the outcome. This is in spite of rancorous partisan divisions, which serve to distract voters from the reality that they no longer live in a democracy. Furthermore, this unelected government has forged close ties with allies across the private sector. It has grown too powerful for any elected politician to challenge.
Thus it appears that the problem created by having a democracy was solved by revoking democracy, which may have important implications for the plausibility of genuinely democratic governance in a world in which nationalism reigns as the prominent ideology. It remains to be seen if this new problem has a solution.
…
*Note: The term “deep state” is sometimes used to describe the part of US government that controls long-term planning. However, that term has become politicized and is imprecise because it has widely different meanings to different people. I used it in the title of this piece only because I couldn’t think of another word that would be as catchy or pithy.
