"Deep States" and Secession

There is this concept among the right wing or right populists about a "deep state." I am not sure what the formal definition of "deep state" is, or what would distinguish it from just cliques of special interests in and outside the government. Would the "military-industrial complex" referred to by President Eisenhower be a "deep state"?

It could be that the public now has adopted a term to refer to a bureaucracy that has been built up by special interests ascendant in prior presidential administrations. However, the idea that there is a bureaucracy with its own agenda and disdainful of popular elections is hardly new.

The hugely popular comedy, "Yes, Minister," with its sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister" portrayed a British bureaucracy which had its own agenda and did what it could to thwart the elected officials in any and every way it could. I don't know if it could be called the "deep state" since it seemed to encompass the entire British government excepting the elected officials. The first series ran on BBC from 1980 to 1984 and the sequel from 1986 to 1988. Episodes ran on PBS later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

The movie, "A Very British Coup," has the government attempting to undermine a socialist prime minister, and then when the elections go the wrong way the final scene suggests that the elected government has been overthrown. In this case there is a formation within the government which is actively opposing a socialist prime minister. It was originally a novel published in 1982, and then adapted twice for television in both 1988 and 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_British_Coup

The idea that the federal government is working to undermine and subvert the agenda of a newly elected president with a different direction for government isn't new either.

M.E. Bradford, neo-Confederate, paleoconservative, and racist reactionary saw the federal bureaucracy as an active enemy of the new direction of Ronald Reagan and also was very vocal in his concerns that the Washington establishment would undermine Reagan's agenda until it became clear that Reagan didn't really have much of an agenda himself. This was back in 1976 when Reagan was elected.

The above is to show that the idea of a grouping or clique of government officials operating with various levels of conspiratorial methods is not a new concept. It has been abroad in popular culture and now it is called "deep state."

What is interesting is this article at Politico that the majority believe or tend to believe that there is a "deep state."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/poll-deep-state-470282

The results are 27% says the "deep state" definitely exists and 47% believe it probably exists. That totals up to 74%. Who says Americans are deeply divided?

Only 5% said they believe the "deep state" definitely doesn't exist, and 16% said it probably doesn't exist.

The impact on the issue of secession is the relation of the ideas of a "deep state" and "nationalism."

Nation's are elite projects. They were invented with the end of dynastic states to provide a vessel for governance. The statement with the formation of Italy, made by an Italian nationalist, that they have created Italy, and that now they must create Italians, actually applies to most western European states of any size.

If the Nation as a political vehicle is seen as a vehicle that is only beneficial to an elite unbounded by democracy and disdainful of it, the particular national idea loses support. Though secession has the idea that another smaller nation as a political vehicle can be kept from the control of elites because everyone is part of some smaller national identity. Currently the idea to counter the failings of nationalism is to launch another nationalism which can be expected to result in small petty states with small elites. In short the secession idea is to fight the consequence an idea with more of the same with hopes that it will turn out different because our nationality is so special.

Since there isn't really any alternate idea, secession will likely pick up support from the alienated. With 75% of Americans thinking the national government is a "deep state," I don't think that there will be a lot of interest in supporting the national government if it calls for personal sacrifice, and nations often need to consume personal sacrifice.

For secessionists it means that they can expect to have a body of alienated to recruit from. For national governments they will have to largely support themselves with the resources they have and not expect the public to make serious sacrifices if things get difficult. The national government can expect that they have ambivalent support. Historically this is the situation where seemingly imposing states find that their situation is very much at risk.

The federal government's actions against the Bundy Ranch and the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge show a government that doesn't feel they have strong popular support and act cautiously to avoid giving insurrectionists public sympathy. I can only imagine what would be the situation if somewhere there were several hundred people better organized, determined and planning serious insurrection.

This doesn't mean secession is the wave of the future. It just is another indication of the shift in the environment towards conditions favorable towards secessionists. It isn't that you have a big shift in support of secession, though it could be expected that there will be some increase of support for secession, especially if the Democrats are seen as the future of the national government.

The importance is that support for the government will be less. The national government can be packages inside the concept of a "deep state" which sounds ominous instead of the concept of the United States of American which has popular sympathy. A movement composed of a small percentage of highly motivated individuals when faced with a largely apathetic opposition is not in a bad position.

Again, this is just a development, and hopefully will remain an obscure footnote in national history.