Deep State actors are unelected officials buried within the government bureaucracy who subtly implement policies of their own making, unaligned with or counter to the Administration. (our definition)
Independent of whether they helped or hurt the President, the impeachment inquiry witnesses have provided a crystal-clear example of what the “deep state” is and how it operates. In this regard, the impeachment inquiry has bequeathed a valuable service to the public, albeit not toward the intended goal of the Democrats.
All the witnesses so far have been well-educated and well-spoken people who occupy the position of Ambassador, chargé d’affaires, or other Embassy staff officer. They have credibly testified to what they believe the US policy toward Ukraine should be and how it should be carried out. Their beliefs are based on their own learned academic analysis of the country as well as relationships they have formed with the Ukrainian leadership and some of its citizens. On the surface, this sounds like a prudent way for foreign service officers to perform their jobs. Their comportment in these hearings projected a confidence that appropriately studied objectives were being pursued. They came off as professionals who genuinely and passionately believe they are applying their expert tradecraft to an important government function. There was little hint of ill intent.
This is exactly why the deep state is so hard to identify, and even harder to eliminate. The stellar resumes of these people, combined with their long and dedicated service, are viewed by their peers (and themselves) as preeminent and having a “scholarly” authority. There is nothing inherently wrong with this unless it becomes irreconcilable with an opposing directive from above. In the military and much of government service, strategy/direction is set by the chief executive and is always authoritative. If those strategies and directives appear less informed or even counter to the thoughtful analysis of the local “on the ground” expert, a problem can occur. This is the tipping point for deep state actors.
If the strategy of the Chief Executive is followed with precision and vigor, there is no deep state influence. If the directive is simply ignored, it is a blatant and obvious case of insubordination. This is easy to detect and is not the typical action of a deep state person, although is often described as such. The deep state problem occurs when the policies of the leadership are subverted so subtly by lower level employees as to be nearly undetectable until an alternative policy is in place. The reason for it being undetectable is that this kind of sabotage is not seen as sabotage by either the person committing it or those around them. The perpetrator truly believes they are doing the correct and honorable thing. The fact that their actions may partially or completely undermine the goals of the leadership is justified to them by the superiority of their unique local knowledge and position on the “front lines”. They believe they are being patriotic.
That is the essence of the deep state. It is not a grand organized underworld. It doesn’t need to be. All the members of the deep state have like-minded motivations and belief systems. That similarity among them makes it seem like they are well-coordinated and part of a larger conspiracy. They aren’t. Their behavior boils down to two things – a lack of respect for the chain of command, and an exaggerated (either accidental or intentional) interpretation of the scope of authority of their position. This is not a problem unique to the government. It takes a strong and often ruthless management chain to ensure corporate compliance with these two concepts and still retain the useful talent that comes with it.
Deep State actors produce the worst consequences in jobs that are highly complex (e.g. computer security engineer, foreign service officer, etc.). The detailed information and decision-making in these jobs is so esoteric, few people fully understand it, much less know if it’s being utilized in a manner compatible with Administration strategy. Within that complexity, a personal agenda on the part of the Deep State actor is easy to disguise.
There are many circumstances where independent decision-making is delegated down the management chain, especially in an organization as large as the federal government. This is expected. However, along with that delegation is the always present assumption that everyone in the chain is fully aware of the general intent of the leadership and would bound their independent decision space accordingly. This is where each of the impeachment witnesses so far have faltered. Their testimony, both from their written depositions and verbal answers in the hearings, has repeatedly shown them to have to have gone beyond the bounds of the authority attached to their position and/or deviated from the President’s intent.
The best example of this among all the impeachment witnesses last week was Lt. Col. Vindman. In the released transcript of a closed-door impeachment inquiry hearing, Lt. Col. Vindman responded this way to a question from Congressman Chris Stewart:
I would say, first of all, I’m the director for Ukraine. I’m responsible for Ukraine. I’m the most knowledgeable. I’m the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House. I understand all the nuances, the context and so forth surrounding these issues.1
This statement defines a scope of authority beyond even that of the Ambassador, let alone a lower level staff official such as Lt. Col. Vindman. (His official title is “Foreign Area Officer”). Even within the military, his rank is mid-level. Despite his grandiose claims of knowledge and authority, neither he or any staff official or Ambassador are privy to all of the nuance and information that is available to the President. The expertise of Lt. Col. Vindman may be of great value, but it is meant to assist policy makers, including the President, not become the default policy simply because he is an “expert”.
What none of these witnesses seem to acknowledge is that the intent of the President, which they may ideologically or otherwise disagree with, is not simply conjured from the President’s own personal feelings. It is a direct reflection of the wishes of the voters who put him in office. It is not in the job description or scope of authority of any Ambassador or his/her staff to override that intent. It is their job to carry out the President’s strategy, and only the President’s strategy. Ideally, they would pursue the President’s policies with all the passion and vigor they have for their own expertly developed policy positions.
It’s not that these are bad people, it’s that they’ve transformed their role as public servants into that of champions of their own “studied” approach. They claim to be acting in the best interests of the country but view themselves, not the President, as the determiner of what those “best interests” are. If challenged on that point, they refer to “longstanding” policy or “consensus” viewpoints as their guiding principal, and not the present moment objectives of the President.
Unfortunately, the only way to absolutely solve this problem is to replace every single ambassador who worked under the previous administration. This is precisely what President Barack Obama did on January 20th, 2008 (the day he was inaugurated). On that day, every single US Ambassador was ordered to vacate their post. There was no cause given or lack of performance cited and no fanfare. Since it is the prerogative of any President to choose their own foreign representatives, no reason was required. President Trump made a mistake in not doing the same exact thing as his predecessor.
The dilemma of deep state actors subverting the President’s agenda has been long-standing and tenacious throughout American history. It took President Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, nearly six years to “purge” all the holdovers from the previous administration who he determined were working against him. Even back in 1828 the deep state was spread throughout the government like kudzu. President Trump presides over a government workforce orders of magnitude larger than in Andrew Jackson’s time. He needs to be far more ruthless than Jackson to eradicate the problem.
1 Following the now infamous July 25th call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, Lt. Col. Vindman took it upon himself to advise the Ukrainian President to “stay out of US politics” (he admitted this in the impeachment hearings). While the Lt. Col. may have been convinced he was right, this kind of interaction with a foreign leader is reserved for the President, and is clearly beyond the scope of authority of a low level staff officer.
One Response
Great analysis related to the nature of the folks in the trenches of our foreign policy, and their respective self worth. Much like players on a sports team that are convinced they know more about the strategy than the coaches and management because they are executing the plan. While the deep state may not have an obvious structure within, it is effectively managed via an exoskeleton of liberals. The extreme behavior and rhetoric of liberals today, combined with the lopsided balance of liberals in all areas of government, supported by mainstream media, create a fully coordinated system of deep state opposition to a conservative president. This is a self evident assumption as conservatives are opposed to large government and liberals are pro government. You can change the managers in government leadership such as ambassadors but unlike a sports team the employees/players are untouchable and can subvert and wait for the guards to change – hence an organized deep state.