I sit at my keyboard, puzzling out the media’s antipathy for Trump’s nominees, Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and Kash Patel for FBI Director.
In politics, the "deep state" often invokes images of shadowy figures pulling the strings behind the scenes. It is a nebulous concept that transcends party lines and operates within a network of institutions, including the military, intelligence agencies, the State Department, the media, universities, and so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This clandestine power structure, however, has undergone a significant transformation in recent years—one that has fundamentally altered its relationship with democracy.
Historically, democracy was defined as a government system expressing the people's will through free and fair elections. Voters had the final say in selecting their leaders, giving the public a direct stake in the political process.
However, over time, a shift has occurred within the deep state. This shift has redefined democracy not as the sum of individual votes but as the consensus of the institutions that form the backbone of the state. This redefinition has given rise to a new understanding of governance, one in which the will of the people is often seen as secondary to the needs of the institutions that manage the state.
The deep state's redefinition of democracy is not merely an intellectual exercise; it has real-world consequences.
As the power of these institutions grew, so too did their influence over the political process. The deep state began to pivot away from its traditional focus on foreign counterterrorism efforts and, instead, turned its gaze inward towards what it deemed as a growing threat: domestic populism. This was not just any populism but a version that challenged the very legitimacy of the deep state's control over the political narrative.
In their eyes, democracy was under attack not from foreign adversaries but from the people it was supposed to serve. Populist movements, often fueled by dissent against the status quo, were seen as a form of "demagoguery" that needed to be curbed to protect the political system's integrity. The populist wave, which found its voice in movements that rejected the elites and their experts and questioned their authority, became the target of the deep state's new mission: defending democracy from itself.
In the name of protecting democracy, they were destroying democracy.
This new deep state mission did not come without its own tactics, many of which raised serious questions about preserving democratic values. The deep state embraced proactive censorship to combat what they saw as a growing threat.
This censorship, often carried out under the guise of protecting democracy, sought to silence dissident voices seen as subversive or outside the mainstream. Whether through the media, online platforms, or academic settings, dissenting opinions were gradually marginalized, and dissenters were censored, de-platformed, or de-banked.
The justification for such censorship was clear: the deep state argued that without such measures, democracy could not survive. If the people were allowed to express their discontent too freely or to promote views that undermined the established order, the entire system of regime governance could collapse. While compelling to those in power, this logic ignored the core principles of democracy—freedom of speech, open discourse, and the right of individuals to challenge their leaders.
It is not a conspiracy but a confederation of mutual interests.
Moreover, the deep state did not act alone in this endeavor. Over the years, they found willing collaborators in the form of corrupt politicians and power-hungry elites. These figures, who craved influence, wealth, and prestige, were quickly co-opted by the promises of power the deep state could offer.
Politicians who once swore allegiance to the people now found themselves doing the bidding of the very institutions they were meant to challenge. In exchange for their loyalty, they were granted positions of authority and control over the policies that shaped the nation's future.
It was a symbiotic-parasitical relationship: the deep state maintained its grip on power, and the political class enjoyed the spoils of that power. But this arrangement came at a steep price: the erosion of democratic norms. In a system that was meant to be governed by the people, the deep state’s covert manipulation of the political process undermined the very foundations of democracy.
Defending democracy or the controlling regime elite?
As the deep state grew in power and influence, the idea of "defending democracy" became less about protecting individual freedoms and more about preserving the institutional consensus. The will of the people in this new order was secondary to the interests of those who controlled the mechanisms of power. Free speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies, became a casualty in this new battle to preserve the status quo.
Disrupting the deep state.
Using political appointees as insiders to disrupt the deep state involves strategically placing trusted individuals within key government agencies to challenge entrenched bureaucratic power and shift policy direction.
Ideally aligned with the political agenda of reform, these appointees can act as conduits for promoting transparency, accountability, and efficiency within the system.
By gaining influence at high levels, they can question longstanding practices, expose inefficiencies or corruption, and advocate for policy changes that reduce the influence of unelected officials.
Appointees who are empowered to make decisions or oversee critical areas of government can also identify opportunities to dismantle or restructure parts of the bureaucracy that serve to perpetuate the deep state's power.
Crucially, these insiders must operate with a clear vision, ensuring that their actions are aligned with broader reform efforts and not swayed by the interests of the entrenched establishment. When used effectively, political appointees can drive a reform agenda that weakens the hold of the deep state and brings more control back to elected officials and the public.
Bottom line…
It is apparent that Trump’s selection of nominees is the root cause of the pushback we are seeing. The deep state does not care about morality, as it and its members are, by definition, immoral. They do not care about hypocrisy or the absurdity of their behavior because it is about hierarchy and control.
Trump’s nominees challenge the existing status quo, and their knowledge and experience make them exceptionally dangerous as they understand the levers of power and the system’s chokepoints. That's pretty much why the establishment Republicans, RINOs, if you will, stand with progressive communist democrats against the existential threat of Trump’s nominees.
Their task is not an easy undertaking and must incrementally progress in two-year phases to keep and enlarge the governing majorities needed for reform. It is a monumental task with no guarantee of success or that our nation, as we know it, will survive.
No longer is democracy about individual participation and the expression of diverse opinions; it has become a tool for maintaining control over the political narrative. As the deep state pivots from external threats to internal dissent, its tactics have increasingly focused on curtailing the free exchange of ideas. In doing so, they risk undermining the very principles that democracy is supposed to uphold.
We are so screwed.
-- Steve
