Someone has surely linked to this piece earlier.
Quote:A cabal of leftist “deep state” government workers, “globalists,” bankers, adherents to Islamic fundamentalism and establishment Republicans are conspiring to remove President Trump and impose cultural Marxism in the United States, according to a former White House aide whose darkly worded memo detailing the alleged conspiracy got him removed last month from the National Security Council.
NYT
These sorts of ideas are not new. Most are featured in John Birch literature and the others are of the same sort but with a modern coloration. So it is probably a good opportunity to cite Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics again.
Quote:American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.
full essay here
But as regards Rich Higgins memo quoted in part up top, there's this:
Quote:A cabal of leftist “deep state” government workers
The notion of "deep state" actors can make some sense, for example, in pointing to the modern intelligence community who can and do operate in secrecy and who have significant power within government and over citizens. Given what we know about the operations of J Edgar Hoover, how he developed and manipulated levers of power to control others in politics or the broader community, we might put him up as an example of deep state. But beyond such examples (and we recognize a level of necessity here where operations are not criminal) who would we (or who would Higgins) point to?
A defining characteristic would have to be holding some position in government that has very real power to manipulate other government operations around them. If no such power, then they are just staff. What positions would those be? This is entirely unclear to me and I fully expect it is entirely unclear to those who use the term "deep state".
But beyond that, notice Higgins' claim that these "deep state" actors are
leftists. Huh? Let's think about this a bit. First, who put them there? When? How is it that they remain in place and have not been cleaned out with each successive change in administration?
And a related important question - how has it happened that only (or mainly, if we are generous) leftists have been locked into such positions? Why has it happened that conservative/right wing administrations and appointees have failed to place their own people into these slots? After all, we know the right has been very organized towards placing their people into important legal positions from local to federal levels (this is the mission of the Federalist Society and the modern Supreme Court is a product of these initiatives).
You have to be seriously credulous to buy into the leftist deep state notion. It just makes no sense at all. But it does contain all the echoes of Bircher ideology and paranoia.