Just to throw in my shorthand version of this. You don’t need a conspiracy theory ‘Deep State’ when the system has created a self replicating bureaucracy machine. If it follows the rules it has set itself, and it must, then it is inevitable that it will continue to grow and metastasise.
Changing the personnel won’t make any difference, we need to change the algorithm governing the machine.
People love the phrase "deep state" because it implies that there is a locus of control, and to kill the thing they simply need to find and execute that cabal. That all of this happens because of mundane human behavior gives their anger and frustration no target.
Any government that tried to challenge the current progressive ‘consensus’ would not just be at war with their own civil service. They would be at war with every civic, quasi-governmental, charitable and academic institution. They would be at war with an immensely powerful, octopus-like legal establishment. Needless to say they would be at war with the mainstream media. Perhaps the least worst thing that what remains of the Tory Party could do now would be to just admit it! To humbly acknowledge its complicity, over many decades, in a cultural shape shift – one that the voting public never positively asked for; just passively accepted. Honesty probably gets more votes than weasely cant.....https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
I once heard John Harvey Jones speak (he was Chairman of ICI IIRC). The one thing he said that has stuck with me for over 20 years was "The actions of politicians and bureaucrats usually have the opposite of what they intended." That of course means they double down on what they did and never learn from their mistakes.
The other is that there is no problem that a bureaucrat can't solve with another form, preferably completed in triplicate and which requires another department to file, analyse and report on, which of course, is never read by anyone.
This is a very fair precis of the election here in the UK recently, but there were more variables at play in Scotland especially. The SNP has been in perpetual crisis which have directly concerned two mammoth leaders it had been fortunate to have one after the other - just as Covid was getting under way Alex Salmond was found not guilty of a wide range of very serious sex offences, then his hand-picked and groomed successor Nicola Sturgeon was arrested along with her husband and a treasurer type-person as part of an investigation into misused party funds. That case is ongoing - the gender craziness occurred in its midst. Then her handpicked successor, Hamza Yousef, resigned just a few months into the job because he upset the SNP's coalition partners, the remarkably loopy Greens. Now HE is under investigation for £250k said to have sent on his say-so to UNRWA whilst family members of his were stuck in Gaza and whilst funding to UNRWA had been suspended due to the really remarkable coincidence that terrorist infrastructure keeps being found in and beneath its premises. So the SNP, following total dominance of Scottish politics for the last decade or so is now dripping in ordure and a resurgent Labour Party (the natural and traditional home of course for quite a lot of the Scottish electorate, including many who support independence) has taken advantage. As for the Labour Party UK-wide, it's support is broad but very, very shallow. It is the most fragile landslide you could imagine.
I would think the term Deep State is best applied to places like Greece and especially Turkey. That said, in the UK most real power is held by officials. Dominic Cummings on his blog says that apart from the Prime Minister and Chancellor there are umpteen officials with more power than the next most powerful politician. These are not limited to the security and intelligence domains, but may be treasury senior officials and the like. The dysfunctional bureaucracy (the blob, the swamp, the lawyers etc) is another thing and the reason why no matter how decisively the PM - especially Conservative PMs who will obviously be loathed by our progressive civil service which will obstruct any policies it doesn't like* - so routinely pulls the lever and nothing at all results. The truth is that the British civil service (almost all of it anyway) has never forgiven the British people for Brexit and its left-wing temperament renders it incapable of carrying out instructions it deems unkind or nasty.
* civil servants took the govt to court not long ago arguing that the Rwanda asylum policy was illegal and they couldn't be asked to deliver it. They were wrong. But still the sum total of asylum seekers removed to Rwanda under the last govt's flagship scheme I think reached 5 before Labour abandoned it on day one.
A fascinating, well-argued article which makes for compelling reading. I wonder what, if anything, can be done about the corruption of our civil service? You’ve certainly given us things to think about. Thank you, Mr Warby.
Great article! I wonder what your thoughts are at Elon Musk's claim that he'd cut 80% of the bureaucracy. Is it a pipe dream? Would it make a difference aside from cutting costs (i.e. would it affect the Iron Law)?
Some serious pruning is clearly required. The natural tendency is for bureaucratic delivery to get worse over time. Much more use of a “franchise” mode (e.g. in schooling) is needed. Trying to put a figure on level of cuts required is much harder. The system of administrative law in the US clearly needs major reform and big reductions without reductions in activities are likely to be both hard and not persistent. Also, if it just shifts to even more things being fought out in the courts, that is not an improvement.
The 'Deep State' is something quite other than mere metastasising bureaucracy aka 'The Blob'. It is that part of the State apparat which is covert and controlling, not simply inefficient; ruthless, rather than incompetent, and selfishly purposive, to the point of malevolence, more than neutrally self-interested
Imo “deep state” says nothing either way about the *competence* of the members thereof, just the explicitly political nature and self-interested (beyond their organizational mandate) and *wilfully* malevolent nature.
“…the ‘deep state’. But the term mystifies more than it reveals.”
I like your piece. I agree with almost all of it, and find it very well written. If you want to argue the points you make here re: the nature of governmental bureaucracies are more important than the “deep state” point, I won’t argue that. But the “deep state” is something beyond what you’ve (accurately) described.
In terms of what the “deep state” is in the U.S., it is the set of unelected people within the bureaucracy making policy themselves and/or taking actions not merely that serve their bureaucratic interests, or even their selfish personal/financial interests, but that serve their political ideology/party independent of the goals/objectives of the currently elected government, or of the mandate of their organization.
Whether and how well they are coordinated is an almost irrelevant point. That they are unified in their ideological and electoral objectives is usually sufficient for purposes of coordination.
The FBI agents who wiretapped the Trump organization based on the known-to-be-false Steele dossier are examples of the deep state. The FBI agents whose texts demonstrated they were out to defeat Trump are textbook cases of the deep state.
The Russia collusion narrative and the subsequent hiring of special counsel and investigation UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is a prime example of the deep state.
If you want to argue that the appointment of a special counsel investigator itself was out in the open and hence not “deep state” stuff (and that Trump was politically stupid for allowing the folks who made that decision to be at the head of the FBI), fair enough. But the rest of it is undeniably “deep state” in a way that is distinct from all the general, well-made points you made about bureaucracies looking out for their own bureaucratic interests.
And it’s a great argument for why the Project 2025 proposal of converting a few thousand additional U.S. bureaucracy management positions to be political appointments rather than civil service protected is an excellent idea (whatever else you think of various other Project 2025 ideas).
I read not so long ago from someone's clarification, that "the swamp" was the overall benign, incompetent, or failing bureaucracy, while the "deep state" was the subset thereof involving mostly the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, following the comment from Andrew Phillips above: "covert and controlling", etc.
From the little that I know about it right now, I hope the 2025 Project is successful, presuming Trump is the next president, and that he has been and is listening to them. But the core need will be legislation that reforms the civil service laws* under a "unitary executive", so non performers can be readily let go; while still allowing for some review and to minimize loyalty/spoils systems (which probably cannot be avoided completely in any case.)
The thing is, converting a few thousand positions would not create a spoils system nearly as big as exists today with federal spending. And to the extent that it is non-zero increase in said “spoils”, it just means Dems will no longer be entitled to 98.7% of them as now (my percentage might be low…)
Getting rid of non-performers is a different issue. I’m sure I share your goals there, but that part is wholly separate from reclassifying a bunch more existing management bureaucracy jobs as political.
[Personally, I think pretty much any job above first level manager should be subject to appointment by the executive, and *certainly* any job that has *any* say in setting policy implementation criteria, let alone actual policy.]
Dems will howl, because in the current swamp/deep state, they control almost all of those jobs now, and way beyond the “spoils” comp issues, they simply want to retain that power, and consider it their birthright being leftists.
As an aside, imo the “swamp” also includes elected officials, media and lobbyists in D.C.; it’s not merely the bureaucracy - although many members of the bureaucracy are of course part of the swamp.
I agree the swamp could be expanded to include many elements of the media and the lobbyist/regulatory/legislative revolving door. Basically anywhere there are opportunities for corruption at the taxpayer expense.
I also agree any policy influencing management position should be subject to direct unitary president control, whether appointed or not. One thing I think might help reduce the "agency loyalty" problem is to require midlevel mgmt to be rotated into peer positions within an agency, and also across agencies, before they are promoted to a higher level. This would help to expand their experience and value/knowledge, plus reduce loyalty to a given agency over getting experience among several.
I suppose the pot could be sweetened even more with an implied idea that the pool of these folks are candidates for agency heads via appointment, similar to how SCOTUS justices are usually selected from among the lower tier Article III courts.
I agree - getting all of the senior people via promotion from within would not be good, in part because they might still have different political views or agendas, even when doing their best to be "nonpartisan". Some of the SES (if not all) would have to be the "president's men (women)" to reflect the values of the voters who elected him/her. Reducing the number of agencies or their size, reach, and complexity might also reduce the number of such senior positions required in the first place - a good all by itself.
Plus, when your net goal is to "clean house" that has to be done with outside people (possibly in consultation with employees who know where the skeletons, etc., are.)
Just to throw in my shorthand version of this. You don’t need a conspiracy theory ‘Deep State’ when the system has created a self replicating bureaucracy machine. If it follows the rules it has set itself, and it must, then it is inevitable that it will continue to grow and metastasise.
Changing the personnel won’t make any difference, we need to change the algorithm governing the machine.
Nicely put.
Thanks Lorenzo!
People love the phrase "deep state" because it implies that there is a locus of control, and to kill the thing they simply need to find and execute that cabal. That all of this happens because of mundane human behavior gives their anger and frustration no target.
Any government that tried to challenge the current progressive ‘consensus’ would not just be at war with their own civil service. They would be at war with every civic, quasi-governmental, charitable and academic institution. They would be at war with an immensely powerful, octopus-like legal establishment. Needless to say they would be at war with the mainstream media. Perhaps the least worst thing that what remains of the Tory Party could do now would be to just admit it! To humbly acknowledge its complicity, over many decades, in a cultural shape shift – one that the voting public never positively asked for; just passively accepted. Honesty probably gets more votes than weasely cant.....https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
finally wars worth having.
I once heard John Harvey Jones speak (he was Chairman of ICI IIRC). The one thing he said that has stuck with me for over 20 years was "The actions of politicians and bureaucrats usually have the opposite of what they intended." That of course means they double down on what they did and never learn from their mistakes.
The other is that there is no problem that a bureaucrat can't solve with another form, preferably completed in triplicate and which requires another department to file, analyse and report on, which of course, is never read by anyone.
This is a very fair precis of the election here in the UK recently, but there were more variables at play in Scotland especially. The SNP has been in perpetual crisis which have directly concerned two mammoth leaders it had been fortunate to have one after the other - just as Covid was getting under way Alex Salmond was found not guilty of a wide range of very serious sex offences, then his hand-picked and groomed successor Nicola Sturgeon was arrested along with her husband and a treasurer type-person as part of an investigation into misused party funds. That case is ongoing - the gender craziness occurred in its midst. Then her handpicked successor, Hamza Yousef, resigned just a few months into the job because he upset the SNP's coalition partners, the remarkably loopy Greens. Now HE is under investigation for £250k said to have sent on his say-so to UNRWA whilst family members of his were stuck in Gaza and whilst funding to UNRWA had been suspended due to the really remarkable coincidence that terrorist infrastructure keeps being found in and beneath its premises. So the SNP, following total dominance of Scottish politics for the last decade or so is now dripping in ordure and a resurgent Labour Party (the natural and traditional home of course for quite a lot of the Scottish electorate, including many who support independence) has taken advantage. As for the Labour Party UK-wide, it's support is broad but very, very shallow. It is the most fragile landslide you could imagine.
I would think the term Deep State is best applied to places like Greece and especially Turkey. That said, in the UK most real power is held by officials. Dominic Cummings on his blog says that apart from the Prime Minister and Chancellor there are umpteen officials with more power than the next most powerful politician. These are not limited to the security and intelligence domains, but may be treasury senior officials and the like. The dysfunctional bureaucracy (the blob, the swamp, the lawyers etc) is another thing and the reason why no matter how decisively the PM - especially Conservative PMs who will obviously be loathed by our progressive civil service which will obstruct any policies it doesn't like* - so routinely pulls the lever and nothing at all results. The truth is that the British civil service (almost all of it anyway) has never forgiven the British people for Brexit and its left-wing temperament renders it incapable of carrying out instructions it deems unkind or nasty.
* civil servants took the govt to court not long ago arguing that the Rwanda asylum policy was illegal and they couldn't be asked to deliver it. They were wrong. But still the sum total of asylum seekers removed to Rwanda under the last govt's flagship scheme I think reached 5 before Labour abandoned it on day one.
Thanks for the extra detail on Scotland.
A fascinating, well-argued article which makes for compelling reading. I wonder what, if anything, can be done about the corruption of our civil service? You’ve certainly given us things to think about. Thank you, Mr Warby.
Over here 🇺🇸 we just shoot politicians… And miss … but they’ll keep at it…
The DEMS just committed.
I’m basically MAGA and voted Trump, I think he’s great …
But it’s just so much bigger than 2 parties…
These things happen from time to time
Valid semantics. I can buy that.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/fe4bdade3adb242a4dfe816d22f462f7/tenor.gif?itemid=10730215
(Dad's Army: "We're doomed!")
Isn’t the “deep state” just the word for a huge unwieldy bureaucracy with lots of books and crannies to nurture niche agendas.
It usually also has some notion of coherence of action hidden from outsiders. That is the bit that, in the West, is way over-stated.
Great article! I wonder what your thoughts are at Elon Musk's claim that he'd cut 80% of the bureaucracy. Is it a pipe dream? Would it make a difference aside from cutting costs (i.e. would it affect the Iron Law)?
Some serious pruning is clearly required. The natural tendency is for bureaucratic delivery to get worse over time. Much more use of a “franchise” mode (e.g. in schooling) is needed. Trying to put a figure on level of cuts required is much harder. The system of administrative law in the US clearly needs major reform and big reductions without reductions in activities are likely to be both hard and not persistent. Also, if it just shifts to even more things being fought out in the courts, that is not an improvement.
It’s bureaucracy when it does its job, however well or badly; deep state when it has its own agenda
Great stuff Lorenzo
The 'Deep State' is something quite other than mere metastasising bureaucracy aka 'The Blob'. It is that part of the State apparat which is covert and controlling, not simply inefficient; ruthless, rather than incompetent, and selfishly purposive, to the point of malevolence, more than neutrally self-interested
I don’t deny the self-interest, or even that there is a degree of coordination, merely the level and competence of it.
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/just-dont-go-there
Imo “deep state” says nothing either way about the *competence* of the members thereof, just the explicitly political nature and self-interested (beyond their organizational mandate) and *wilfully* malevolent nature.
“…the ‘deep state’. But the term mystifies more than it reveals.”
I like your piece. I agree with almost all of it, and find it very well written. If you want to argue the points you make here re: the nature of governmental bureaucracies are more important than the “deep state” point, I won’t argue that. But the “deep state” is something beyond what you’ve (accurately) described.
In terms of what the “deep state” is in the U.S., it is the set of unelected people within the bureaucracy making policy themselves and/or taking actions not merely that serve their bureaucratic interests, or even their selfish personal/financial interests, but that serve their political ideology/party independent of the goals/objectives of the currently elected government, or of the mandate of their organization.
Whether and how well they are coordinated is an almost irrelevant point. That they are unified in their ideological and electoral objectives is usually sufficient for purposes of coordination.
The FBI agents who wiretapped the Trump organization based on the known-to-be-false Steele dossier are examples of the deep state. The FBI agents whose texts demonstrated they were out to defeat Trump are textbook cases of the deep state.
The Russia collusion narrative and the subsequent hiring of special counsel and investigation UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION is a prime example of the deep state.
If you want to argue that the appointment of a special counsel investigator itself was out in the open and hence not “deep state” stuff (and that Trump was politically stupid for allowing the folks who made that decision to be at the head of the FBI), fair enough. But the rest of it is undeniably “deep state” in a way that is distinct from all the general, well-made points you made about bureaucracies looking out for their own bureaucratic interests.
And it’s a great argument for why the Project 2025 proposal of converting a few thousand additional U.S. bureaucracy management positions to be political appointments rather than civil service protected is an excellent idea (whatever else you think of various other Project 2025 ideas).
I read not so long ago from someone's clarification, that "the swamp" was the overall benign, incompetent, or failing bureaucracy, while the "deep state" was the subset thereof involving mostly the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, following the comment from Andrew Phillips above: "covert and controlling", etc.
From the little that I know about it right now, I hope the 2025 Project is successful, presuming Trump is the next president, and that he has been and is listening to them. But the core need will be legislation that reforms the civil service laws* under a "unitary executive", so non performers can be readily let go; while still allowing for some review and to minimize loyalty/spoils systems (which probably cannot be avoided completely in any case.)
*there are apparently several varieties.
The thing is, converting a few thousand positions would not create a spoils system nearly as big as exists today with federal spending. And to the extent that it is non-zero increase in said “spoils”, it just means Dems will no longer be entitled to 98.7% of them as now (my percentage might be low…)
Getting rid of non-performers is a different issue. I’m sure I share your goals there, but that part is wholly separate from reclassifying a bunch more existing management bureaucracy jobs as political.
[Personally, I think pretty much any job above first level manager should be subject to appointment by the executive, and *certainly* any job that has *any* say in setting policy implementation criteria, let alone actual policy.]
Dems will howl, because in the current swamp/deep state, they control almost all of those jobs now, and way beyond the “spoils” comp issues, they simply want to retain that power, and consider it their birthright being leftists.
As an aside, imo the “swamp” also includes elected officials, media and lobbyists in D.C.; it’s not merely the bureaucracy - although many members of the bureaucracy are of course part of the swamp.
I agree the swamp could be expanded to include many elements of the media and the lobbyist/regulatory/legislative revolving door. Basically anywhere there are opportunities for corruption at the taxpayer expense.
I also agree any policy influencing management position should be subject to direct unitary president control, whether appointed or not. One thing I think might help reduce the "agency loyalty" problem is to require midlevel mgmt to be rotated into peer positions within an agency, and also across agencies, before they are promoted to a higher level. This would help to expand their experience and value/knowledge, plus reduce loyalty to a given agency over getting experience among several.
I suppose the pot could be sweetened even more with an implied idea that the pool of these folks are candidates for agency heads via appointment, similar to how SCOTUS justices are usually selected from among the lower tier Article III courts.
Principle applies for the private sector as well.
I’m fine with all EXCEPT your last point.
If agency heads can only come from within, that would institutionalize still more leftist control of the Executive branch bureaucracy
I agree - getting all of the senior people via promotion from within would not be good, in part because they might still have different political views or agendas, even when doing their best to be "nonpartisan". Some of the SES (if not all) would have to be the "president's men (women)" to reflect the values of the voters who elected him/her. Reducing the number of agencies or their size, reach, and complexity might also reduce the number of such senior positions required in the first place - a good all by itself.
Plus, when your net goal is to "clean house" that has to be done with outside people (possibly in consultation with employees who know where the skeletons, etc., are.)
I would’ve expected you’d address the consequences of the feminisation of society on our bureaucracies?
I considered doing so, but I have discussed that at length elsewhere, and I am travelling at the moment, so went for a pithier post.