The Deep State Isn’t a Conspiracy, It’s a Revolution

The Capitol in Washington on Sept. 25, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

Commentary

Ever since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the mask has been slipping from the “deep state.” But last week, The New York Times ripped it off completely.

“President Trump is right: the deep state is alive and well,” says a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. The deep state, she explains, is a small number of experts who sometimes openly, sometimes covertly, oppose and undermine the constitutionally elected president of the United States.

In 2018, former FBI Director James Comey insisted “there is no deep state.” At that time, they called themselves simply “the resistance,” but they have since grown more honest (or rather more shameless).

Now, they concede they resist Trump not because he threatens some constitutional status quo, but because he threatens their claim to rule and the persistent drift toward a political revolution they’ve been working toward for decades.

They aim to change our form of government from a constitutional republic that seeks “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” to a bureaucratic technocracy that seeks to impose on the American people a Neo-Marxist understanding of justice in the name of a “global struggle for human dignity and freedom.”

Someone once noted that all political conflicts in a community are related to “the most fundamental political controversy,” the question of who should rule.

The deep state isn’t a conspiracy; it’s a revolution.

The Rise of the Bureaucratic Technocracy

The author of the New York Times op-ed, titled “They Are Not the Resistance. They Are Not a Cabal. They Are Public Servants,” calls agents of the deep state—like the much-lauded whistleblower—“heroes.” They are heroes because they “protect the interests, not of a particular leader, but of the American people.”

Kim Jong Un claims to serve the interests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Like Kim, deep state agents aren’t actually responsible to the people they claim to serve. But responsibility, through elections, is the only way a people can retain sovereignty.

The author claims deep state agents are “public servants.” When, however, they prefer their own policies to those of elected officials, they don’t act like servants of the public; they act like its rulers.

But we can trust these deep state heroes, we are told, because they are experts who know things such as “science, expertise and facts”—things the American people just can’t understand when they vote. In other words, these deep state agents believe the United States is no longer a republic over which the people are sovereign. To them, it’s a technocracy in which they, the experts, rule.

Further, the agents of the deep state operate by any means necessary, regardless of the Constitution. The deep state replaces the Constitution, through which the sovereign people express their will, with a bureaucracy, through which its agents dictate and justify whatever policy they want.

The word “bureaucracy” is illuminating. It’s similar to “democracy,” which means the rule or literally the “power” of the people. Bureaucracy, though, means “the power of the desk.” Try arguing with a bureaucrat; it’s like arguing with a desk.

No people who submit to the rule of an unaccountable bureaucracy can really call themselves free.

New Regime With New Understanding of Justice

Not only does the deep state aim to overthrow our form of government; it also aims to enforce a new understanding of justice. An earlier op-ed from The New York Times, titled “We Are Not the Resistance,” explains exactly what form of justice the technocrats of the deep state are seeking to impose on the American people.

The author dislikes the word “resistance” and points out that it’s really a conservative word. She warns that merely resisting Trump might “tempt us to set our sights too low” and even “to forget our ultimate purpose and place in history.” She sees theirs as a kind of universal, religious mission.

She notes that in fact “Donald Trump is the resistance.” What is he resisting? The birth of a “new nation” that is “struggling to be born.”

The election of President Barack Obama, she says, was supposed to symbolize “the imminent birth of this new America.” But now, Trump is messing up the plan by resisting the implementation of a new understanding of justice.

The new justice of this “new nation” is exactly opposite to that of the founding of the United States. The founders held that “all men are created equal.” In the “new nation,” though, all men belong to various, unequal groups.

They call this new justice “social justice.” The peddlers of social justice try to weave together the plights of all supposedly oppressed peoples in the world into a new proletariat that history is using to overthrow the oppression by the new bourgeoisie of the cis-gendered, white, male patriarchy.

The author says plainly, “We aim ... to reimagine the meaning of justice in America.” And the dictates of social justice don’t depend on elections, which is why deep state agents feel justified disregarding election outcomes when they conflict with the “radical evolution of American democracy.”

The deep state is about as democratic as North Korea. It’s not democratic evolution; it’s political revolution.

And that’s the real irony of the deep state. Its agents claim to serve the interests of the American people by opposing Trump, forgetting that it was those same people who chose Trump in the first place, knowing full well who he was.

The deep state is undermining not the authority of Donald Trump, but that of the sovereign people of the United States. If the allies of the deep state don’t like the term “resistance,” perhaps they prefer the term “treason”?

Clifford Humphrey is originally from Warm Springs, Georgia. Currently, he is a doctoral candidate in politics at Hillsdale College in Michigan. Follow him on Twitter @cphumphrey.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.