Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Taibbi doesn't think it's a whistleblower
- This topic has 44 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 14, 2019 at 10:03 pm #106696
wvParticipantDeep State to me is a term that refers to career government people, with the Intelligence and Security arms being the most powerful. It is people who work for the government, but don’t face elections, many of whom have long careers, and therefore have long, institutional memories. They think much longer term in their strategies than elected officials, who are more short-term thinkers and planners, and more focused on themselves, rather than on institutional goals.
There is a deep state. I mean…there just is.
The fact that the right wing lunatics think that the Deep State is a monolithic, anti-American, liberal, hellhole bureaucracy is about as important to me as the Flat Earth Society.
I think in most of the deep state, the actors basically do what their missions tells them to do…study and inspect agricultural issues, serve environmental needs, produce reports on diseases and auto accidents, examine educational practices and outcomes, and so on.
The CIA and NSA, and to some degree other agencies like DoD, TSA, ICE, FBI, etc., serve the long term interests of the rich and powerful – amorphous financial interests.
==============
I agree Z. Hard for me to believe people ‘dont’ believe in what you just described. Its not a ‘dark fantasy’ or whatever. Its just how things work.
No big thing. Just disagreement among leftists on some stuff.
For me it will always be a term very similar to ‘corporotacracy.’ I never use that term in a precise, scientific way. Just a useful term with some meaning. Same with Deep State. Its not a ‘precise’ term to me, but it has meaning. I tend to think of it as a powerful subsystem of the Corporotacracy, consisting of the CIA/Pentagon/NSA and the various Private Sector tentacles (Some of the Media, some of the Arms Industries, some of the Privatized Special Ops, Some of the Billionaires, etc) that feed into it, etc.
D.S. is just a way of recognizing that there are parts of the Imperialist project that are behind the curtain, beyond democracy.
The Rightwing uses the term differently than I do, or Bill Moyers does, but there is overlap.
I also assume France has a ‘deep state,’ Germany, the UK, etc, etc.
w
vOctober 15, 2019 at 8:40 am #106701
Billy_TParticipantFirst off,
I think it’s good that we can discuss this and not get upset, start hurling insults at each other, question each other’s motives, etc. etc. Most political forums can’t claim that.
Second: Fiona Hill, a highly respected career civil servant, testified yesterday for nine hours. We’re getting reports of some of the things she said, and they support, amplify and extend the remarks of the whistleblower. He or she opened the door. But it’s “the people in the room” who are going to finish off Trump.
(The picture is a link to the NYT story)
Excerpt from the WaPo:
Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia adviser, told impeachment investigators on Monday that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, ran a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that circumvented U.S. officials and career diplomats in order to personally benefit President Trump, according to people familiar with her testimony.
Hill, who served as the senior official for Russia and Europe on the National Security Council, was the latest witness in a fast-moving impeachment inquiry focused on whether the president abused his office by using the promise of military aid and diplomatic support to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals.
In a closed-door session that lasted roughly 10 hours, Hill told lawmakers that she confronted Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about Giuliani’s activities which, she testified, were not coordinated with the officials responsible for carrying out U.S. foreign policy, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose details of her deposition.
October 15, 2019 at 8:56 am #106702Billy_TParticipantBack to the discussion of the term, “deep state.” Unless I misread Zooey, and I probably have, it doesn’t sound like he thinks there are enough people involved to constitute one, even if we’re just talking about per department or agency.
Same caveat with WV, but it sounds like he does think there are enough.
My own view is closer to ZN’s, and his contention of various factions. Though I would add that “desire for power” tends not to show up very often in career employees. The dynamic of power seeking is a highly selective process. As in, if someone seeks it out, and the “conspiracies” and machinations that generally go with it, they’re not likely to take the career civil servant route in the first place. Exceptions, of course, exist. Still, they’re far more likely to take shorter, more lucrative routes, which may end up with someone like a Gordon Sondland, who gave a million dollars to the Trump campaign and was handed an ambassadorship as a result. That’s a far more common practice for those who seek some form of state power.
Power both pre-selects and is selected. This is why a “deep state” is unlikely in America. In more “traditional” societies, where kin and kith and long memories are much more important, there are far better grounds for it. American society is too ephemeral, too “get yours now!”, too opposed to the long view. It’s far too “dynamic” to keep such a thing in place, beyond the built-in power that resides with wealth. This is why, I think, C. Wright Mills’ “Power Elite” idea makes much more sense for us.
Also, until we can dump capitalism for good, which is the necessary stage before we dump centralized state power, we better hope there are serious professional/career civil servants in place, who can counter venal leaders like Trump. Rather than view this as some sinister, coordinated plot . . . I think it’s one of those rare bright spots in a truly ugly time.
October 15, 2019 at 9:59 am #106704wvParticipantBack to the discussion of the term, “deep state.” Unless I misread Zooey, and I probably have, it doesn’t sound like he thinks there are enough people involved to constitute one, even if we’re just talking about per department or agency.
Same caveat with WV, but it sounds like he does think there are enough.
My own view is closer to ZN’s, and his contention of various factions. Though I would add that “desire for power” tends not to show up very often in career employees. The dynamic of power seeking is a highly selective process. As in, if someone seeks it out, and the “conspiracies” and machinations that generally go with it, they’re not likely to take the career civil servant route in the first place. Exceptions, of course, exist. Still, they’re far more likely to take shorter, more lucrative routes, which may end up with someone like a Gordon Sondland, who gave a million dollars to the Trump campaign and was handed an ambassadorship as a result. That’s a far more common practice for those who seek some form of state power.
Power both pre-selects and is selected. This is why a “deep state” is unlikely in America. In more “traditional” societies, where kin and kith and long memories are much more important, there are far better grounds for it. American society is too ephemeral, too “get yours now!”, too opposed to the long view. It’s far too “dynamic” to keep such a thing in place, beyond the built-in power that resides with wealth. This is why, I think, C. Wright Mills’ “Power Elite” idea makes much more sense for us.
Also, until we can dump capitalism for good, which is the necessary stage before we dump centralized state power, we better hope there are serious professional/career civil servants in place, who can counter venal leaders like Trump. Rather than view this as some sinister, coordinated plot . . . I think it’s one of those rare bright spots in a truly ugly time.
=================
Well just as a thot-experiment. Do you think Hoover’s FBI was or had parts of it that could be analogous to a ‘deep state’ ? Do you think he had the power, knowledge, will, to create and nurture something akin to a ‘deep state.’ ? The ‘deep state’ aspect of course is not the same as saying the FBI was ‘monolithic’ etc.
Just curious as to what you would label the Hoover thingy.
Btw, just so you know, the Hoover analogy is more of a RIGTHWING version of ‘the deep state.’
w
vOctober 15, 2019 at 10:21 am #106706
znModeratorBack to the discussion of the term, “deep state.” Unless I misread Zooey, and I probably have, it doesn’t sound like he thinks there are enough people involved to constitute one, even if we’re just talking about per department or agency.
Same caveat with WV, but it sounds like he does think there are enough.
My own view is closer to ZN’s, and his contention of various factions. Though I would add that “desire for power” tends not to show up very often in career employees. The dynamic of power seeking is a highly selective process. As in, if someone seeks it out, and the “conspiracies” and machinations that generally go with it, they’re not likely to take the career civil servant route in the first place. Exceptions, of course, exist. Still, they’re far more likely to take shorter, more lucrative routes, which may end up with someone like a Gordon Sondland, who gave a million dollars to the Trump campaign and was handed an ambassadorship as a result. That’s a far more common practice for those who seek some form of state power.
Power both pre-selects and is selected. This is why a “deep state” is unlikely in America. In more “traditional” societies, where kin and kith and long memories are much more important, there are far better grounds for it. American society is too ephemeral, too “get yours now!”, too opposed to the long view. It’s far too “dynamic” to keep such a thing in place, beyond the built-in power that resides with wealth. This is why, I think, C. Wright Mills’ “Power Elite” idea makes much more sense for us.
Also, until we can dump capitalism for good, which is the necessary stage before we dump centralized state power, we better hope there are serious professional/career civil servants in place, who can counter venal leaders like Trump. Rather than view this as some sinister, coordinated plot . . . I think it’s one of those rare bright spots in a truly ugly time.
=================
Well just as a thot-experiment. Do you think Hoover’s FBI was or had parts of it that could be analogous to a ‘deep state’ ? Do you think he had the power, knowledge, will, to create and nurture something akin to a ‘deep state.’ ? The ‘deep state’ aspect of course is not the same as saying the FBI was ‘monolithic’ etc.
Just curious as to what you would label the Hoover thingy.
Btw, just so you know, the Hoover analogy is more of a RIGTHWING version of ‘the deep state.’
w
v‘
Why does the normal and always understood idea that bureaucracies include entrenched professionals with agendas require the misleading and mystical sounding term “deep state”?Meanwhile the FBI and CIA were famously at odds for decades. Which one of them is the “deep state”? Or are they BOTH “deep states”?
I have always, since I first became politically aware, understood how factions of entrenched professionals in the FBI, CIA, military, and state dept. have influenced policy and various courses of action. I have never NOT thought that.
And yet I find the term “deep state” to be useless and pointless. I’ve already said why. So we just differ on that.
That’s a minor point. The real point I want to make is I have no issue at all with how the Trump stuff got revealed and to me, to throw doubt on it, doesn’t seem all that useful.
…October 15, 2019 at 10:38 am #106707Billy_TParticipantWell just as a thot-experiment. Do you think Hoover’s FBI was or had parts of it that could be analogous to a ‘deep state’ ? Do you think he had the power, knowledge, will, to create and nurture something akin to a ‘deep state.’ ? The ‘deep state’ aspect of course is not the same as saying the FBI was ‘monolithic’ etc.
Just curious as to what you would label the Hoover thingy.
Btw, just so you know, the Hoover analogy is more of a RIGTHWING version of ‘the deep state.’
w
vHoover, of course, was hard-right, politically, and a monster. He basically shredded the Constitution on a weekly, if not daily, basis. He ran the FBI with an iron fist, even before it was called the FBI . . . and it’s always been run by Republicans since his day.
Quick side-note: the Dems brought a lot of this mess on themselves, for seeming indifference when it comes to which party has control over Intel/FBI/Military, etc. . . . Even when Dems hold the White House, they all too often keep Republicans in place. It bit them hard with Comey.
Did Hoover have the power to establish a loyal structure to a degree? Yes. And I have no doubt he did. But the US bureaucracy, at least in “modern times,” is generally too big to establish dominance beyond the layer of leadership and upper management. To the degree that career civil servants obey that leadership, the structure holds. When they finally say “no,” it won’t. Which, to me, says the necessary structure for a “deep state” doesn’t exist in America. Again, for the reasons I mentioned above. It can exist in societies more given to clannish control, more amenable to generational, blood-line (tribal) cohesion and very long memories. Americans are famous for our short memories and seeking “the main chance” in the here and now. So factions will rise and fall. But original structures don’t hold. They’re overturned, and overturned again and again.
IMO, the constant is money equals power. Power is for sale. But that also means short memories and temporary alliances, not blood-memory endurance through time.
Boiled down: We have a top-down dynamic in America, and it’s arguably the most volatile and contingent one in the “developed” world. Money talks. Not blood lines and clan groupings.
October 15, 2019 at 12:32 pm #106711wvParticipantIMO, the constant is money equals power. Power is for sale. But that also means short memories and temporary alliances, not blood-memory endurance through time.
Boiled down: We have a top-down dynamic in America, and it’s arguably the most volatile and contingent one in the “developed” world. Money talks. Not blood lines and clan groupings.
============================
Agreed. Money and Power and Ideology. The three dynamics intersect and those are always the crux of it.
But in a ‘corporotacracy’ or modern plutocracy or modern oligarchy or modern ‘whatever, those 3 things manifest in certain shapes or ways.
One of the ways they exist is in the structures of the secret-government. The Lying-government. The part that ‘fights commies.’ By murder, torture, coups, pysops, disinformation, misinformation, bribes, drug-dealing, killing socialists-by-any-means-necessary. And telling and selling lies upon lies upon lies.
The CIA/Pentagon/NSA and the private sector tentacles (Arms Corpse, CIA-‘journalists’ etc, etc)I name that whole, hard-to-describe, shadowy shebang, the ‘deep state’ sometimes. Sometimes i just call it ‘part of the corporotacracy’. Thats just how i name it.
Unless I’m mistaken you and zn, just use terms like “CIA” and “NSA” etc. I kinda gob them together into a ‘thing’ of sorts. Not monolithic of course. (I mean the Nazis werent monolithic. I’m sure there were Nazi’s who opposed hitler and did what they could etc. But they were still Nazis, and we dont go around saying “there were good Nazis”. No big org is monolithic.)
Anyway ‘deep state’ works for me. Doesnt work for you. No prob.
ZN has never taken to term ‘corporotacracy’ — what about you?
w
vOctober 15, 2019 at 6:08 pm #106735Billy_TParticipantLotsa good questions, as usual, WV. As well as food for thought.
I’m fine with your term, corporotocracy. But, as you know, I think we need to drill down at least one more level. I sincerely believe that the capitalist system itself, its very “nature,” its internal logic, leads inevitably to corporate control, monopolies and oligarchies. I think that’s inevitable for any system that makes it legal for one human being to own the production of others . . . and capitalism is the first system to codify this into law and then globalize it. It just stands to reason that if you allow one human to own everything produced by others, as if that one human being did all the work, you’re going to generate mass inequality, corruption and injustice. No way around it. It’s the slave model, gussied up to one degree or another. All the incentives point to more and more concentration of wealth and power, and fewer people controlling more and more humans, resources, the planet, etc.
A corporation is just the most logical way of organizing that concentration, at the moment, given capitalism’s internal dynamic. But something else may take its place if that becomes more “efficient” as a means to extract and concentrate more wealth, etc. etc.
The CIA, NSA, et al? I think the folks who pull the strings use those agencies to protect “wealth,” first and foremost. Yes, you get “true believers” too. But their belief systems change over time, sometimes per generation. Enemies change. Blacks, Native peoples, migrants, socialists, communists, Muslims, Jews, even Catholics at one time. Ironically, Bill Barr is a religious nutcase and a Catholic, hoping a new Christian army will take over the workings of government to fight “secularists.”
Enemies change. The only thing that remains the same is the irrational need for enemies — and protecting the rich.
I have no idea how to change those constants. But I do know they won’t change as long as capitalism is the economic mode.
October 15, 2019 at 6:13 pm #106737Billy_TParticipantWhen you get the time, would appreciate feedback on the above . . . and my theory that the United States isn’t all that hospital to the “deep state” model.
Ironically, it was moreso in the past. When Mills wrote his Power Elite in the 1950s, there still was a sort (of last gasp remnant) of Northeast, Anglo-Ascendancy that pretty much had power bottled up via the economy and “the state.” I haven’t studied the timeline enough to know when this changed, exactly. But it’s no longer the case. Old Northeast money is no longer the ticket, either.
(I’ll be posting a bit on some personal family history that gives at least some anecdotal evidence for this “loss” later . . . though my background is predominantly Celtic. Perhaps that’s the rationale for what happened later. ;>)
Hang in there, WV.
October 16, 2019 at 7:48 pm #106814wvParticipantLotsa good questions, as usual, WV. As well as food for thought.
I’m fine with your term, corporotocracy. But, as you know, I think we need to drill down at least one more level. I sincerely believe that the capitalist system itself, its very “nature,” its internal logic, leads inevitably to corporate control, monopolies and oligarchies..
=================
I basically agree, but I like to use the terms “CORPORATE-capitalism” or corporotocracy, for ‘strategic’ reasons. Same reasons i never use the term ‘NeoLiberal.’
I just figure that the bewildered-herd has been dummed down and propagandized so much that to criticize “capitalism” is just asking them to go where they cant go. Ya know. But they tend to mistrust Big-Corporations. So I always toss out the term Corporate-capitalism. Instead of Capitalism. I figure they ‘might’ not totally slam their brains shut if I use the CC term instead of the C term.
I could be wrong. Itz just somethin i do.
On ‘this’ board people ‘get it’ so it dont really matter, but out there in the Vast Wasteland…..
w
vOctober 17, 2019 at 8:38 am #106829Billy_TParticipantI basically agree, but I like to use the terms “CORPORATE-capitalism” or corporotocracy, for ‘strategic’ reasons. Same reasons i never use the term ‘NeoLiberal.’
I just figure that the bewildered-herd has been dummed down and propagandized so much that to criticize “capitalism” is just asking them to go where they cant go. Ya know. But they tend to mistrust Big-Corporations. So I always toss out the term Corporate-capitalism. Instead of Capitalism. I figure they ‘might’ not totally slam their brains shut if I use the CC term instead of the C term.
I could be wrong. Itz just somethin i do.
On ‘this’ board people ‘get it’ so it dont really matter, but out there in the Vast Wasteland…..
w
vAll of that makes a lot of sense, WV. And I probably owe you yet another apology. My memory isn’t what it used to be, cuz you’ve probably explained the above rationale about a thousand and one times, and I just forgot about it.
Anyway . . . yeah, I’ve noticed a change over time when discussing the term “capitalism.” Growing up, a direct and harsh critique of our economic system rarely would cause left of center folks the slightest problem. In fact, they’d typically agree. What used to separate “liberals” from leftists is that liberals thought it could be reformed.
Today? It seems to ruffle feathers everywhere but among we leftists. People seem to take it personally, as if the discussion is a direct assault on them, even though we take pains to emphasize we’re talking about the system, not individual Americans, etc.
(will split this in two to make it more Old Hacker-sized)
October 17, 2019 at 8:40 am #106830Billy_TParticipantI think right-wingers, especially right-libertarians, prefer the adjective “crony.” Centrists and moderates, right and left of center, likely do well with your chosen adjective. But they seem to bristle at my critique of capitalism without preamble.
It appears corporate messaging has won the day. They’ve been able to somehow associate “capitalism” with Mom, Apple Pie and America itself.
We live in very, very strange times.
October 17, 2019 at 12:08 pm #106837wvParticipant< My memory isn’t what it used to be, cuz you’ve probably explained the above rationale about a thousand and one times, and I just forgot about it.
Anyway . . .
===========================
My memory has got to be the worst on the board. Trust me. Its awful. I’ve accepted it, though.
Strangely, I can still remember oddities from, like the 70s. Like, i can remember William F Buckley saying he liked peanut-butter sandwiches on his Firing Line Show. But i cant remember what i had for breakfast yesterday. Its weird what my brain retains and what it tosses into the mind-abyss.
w
vOctober 17, 2019 at 12:32 pm #106839Billy_TParticipant< My memory isn’t what it used to be, cuz you’ve probably explained the above rationale about a thousand and one times, and I just forgot about it.
Anyway . . .
===========================
My memory has got to be the worst on the board. Trust me. Its awful. I’ve accepted it, though.
Strangely, I can still remember oddities from, like the 70s. Like, i can remember William F Buckley saying he liked peanut-butter sandwiches on his Firing Line Show. But i cant remember what i had for breakfast yesterday. Its weird what my brain retains and what it tosses into the mind-abyss.
w
vPeanut butter is sacred. So I get that. I think if it were a religion to worship peanut butter, especially with chocolate, I’d give up my atheism.
As for brain retention. I can’t remember where I bumped into this — ironic, aint it — but a recent radio article talked about how time passes faster and faster as we age . . . and how to, maybe, perhaps, slow this down.
Everything is so new when we’re young. And the newness of things forces the brain to process things more, which slows time down. As we get older, we get into more and more routines, and we have less need for that extra processing time. This speeds up our perceptions, apparently. So the article suggested we alter our routines whenever we can. Find the new in life when possible.
But I keep forgetting to do that!!
October 17, 2019 at 12:54 pm #106841wvParticipantSo the article suggested we alter our routines whenever we can. Find the new in life when possible.
================
I suppose i could try crunchy peanut-butter.
w
v -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
