Over ten years ago, a former, long-time congressional staffer, Mike Lofgren, published a scathing and penetrating essay about his experience on Capitol Hill. Titled, “Anatomy of the Deep State,” the column described a power sharing arrangement between the public and private sectors. Like all unequal relationships, one party is leading while the other follows.
The relationship Mr. Lofgren went on to illustrate in great detail was one that escapes scrutiny in education courses about the U.S. government.
Addressing the criticism against partisan gridlock or a dysfunctional government in Washington, DC, Mr. Lofgren points out with a number of examples the arbitrary nature of the political strife. A year before the time of the essay’s writing, Republicans were willing to shut the government down over the debt ceiling, while allowing President Obama the latitude to dispatch the military at a moment’s notice (the message being that there’s always money for war).
Another example of federal budgeting paradox: the periodical collapsing of bridges while the government allocated $1.7 billion for a supreme National Security Agency data storage complex.
Given such scenarios when the collective need for stable infrastructure or a funded government are sidelined in favor of security state interests, Mr. Lofgren discerns a realm of decision making that takes place outside the arena of public consciousness.
The ‘deep state’ is a principality hiding in plain sight. It accounts for all public policy decisions that render government as the favored target of citizen contempt. No one railing against the government will bother to think through modern state craft as practiced in the United States.
As far as public perception of the ‘deep state,’ Donald Trump hasn’t done anyone any favors. Instead of aligning himself with the concern of Americans that their government is unaccountable to their wishes, Trump has made the ‘deep state’ conversation about himself, his persecution complex.
In another essay, “Goodbye to All That” Mr. Lofgren calls out Republicans for exploiting this well-earned mistrust of government.
…a Republican [congressional] committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A cynical ploy, no doubt, but voters lack the critical thinking aptitude to oppose such methods of ‘representing’ them. If rank-and-file Americans are inclined to excoriate the government, it should be an informed and reasoned complaint that calls out the dalliance between the private and public sectors.
Another consideration that should be explored is the public’s default faith and trust in the private sector. The 20th and early 21st centuries are rife with examples when the so-called free enterprise system gave Americans the shaft. Invariably each instance was accompanied by the government’s failure to hold the business world accountable (the 1929 market crash, Big Tobacco’s lies, manufacturing negligence, fiduciary chicanery on the part of Wall Street — the list is exhaustive).
This is a topic worthy of exploring in another posting, but it informs the reason why Americans hate their government. They cannot bear the thought of private enterprise being so enmeshed in public policy that consistently turns out undesired results.
This piece was posted in Newsbreak
Previously Published on Medium
Elvert Barnes on Flickr under CC License
