My general working thesis is that 99.9% of the time when people refer to the “deep state,” they just mean “the state.”

Aren’t you just referring to regular government institutions or is there something I’m missing from your comment?

Generally speaking, the term "deep state" refers to informal power structures within the state apparatus that work against the will of the people.

Which... can be a government institution... but not generally in a democracy.

Can’t speak to the original comment, but I think part of a “deep state” is institutional inertia/tradition.

A state without that deep-rooted sense of continuity is much more fragile. Having a civil service without political allegiance seems to be critical to preservation of a democratic system.

Why are you under the impression that the bureaucracy class does not have a political leaning/allegiance? We know it does, 95% of DC votes for the people that want larger government.

Allegiance is not the same thing as a tendency. And the fact that one party uses smaller government as part of its sales pitch may not last forever.

In the U.S. I would say that Trump’s takeover of the GOP has generally de-emphasized smaller government as a plank of the party. He certainly doesn’t care about it.

Whether the bureaucrats lean towards one party or the other doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t compelled out of fear for their jobs to break the law at the president’s command.

> Whether the bureaucrats lean towards one party or the other doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t compelled out of fear for their jobs to break the law at the president’s command.

I’m thinking about all of the politically motivated “leaks”, the weaponization of institutions like the FBI, DOJ, IRS and I’m just wondering how you are seriously saying above.

The “deep state” or “the state” or “the elites” or “ the bureaucracy class” or whatever you want to call it and whatever you want to claim it exists for… is a different topic than “they don’t break the law”. I’m thinking I must be really misunderstanding your text, because that’s just ridiculous.

The thesis that started this thread: the deep state protects democracy.

Obviously if you interpret “deep state” as “secret cabals of evildoers” then yes, that’s a nonsensical argument.

My personal interpretation of the “deep state” argument that Trump has been bandying around is that he means “people who resist my desire to do whatever I want as President”.

And when it politically aligns with you, you’re happy to say “preserves democracy” while ignoring all the evil and law breaking I guess?

The "deep state" organizations skew 90%+ Democrat.

>I think democracy needs a “Deep State” to succeed

That's the very thing that kills a democracy (both the system of government, and a country that develops one).

In any organization there will be a minority group of highly organized people with most of the power. We call them elites.

But there’s a difference between aristocrats and oligarchs. When people reference the deep state they are referencing what they believe are oligarchs that are self interested and use the state to advance personal goals of power and wealth. What they want but can’t usually communicate is an aristocracy that takes care of them and the country.

Oligarchy decays into populism eventually (years, decades, more?) as we see in many places now. Populists will call for a monarch. This has happened in El Salvador.