One of the primary rallying cries expressed by Presidential candidate Trump is the obliteration of the “Deep State.” This has resonated with many, if not all, of his supporters. The Deep State is considered a clandestine cadre of bureaucrats, military and intelligence personnel within our government, along with high level outside forces that generate or counter policies and actions in the governmental sphere.
Many readers may recall the Deep State idea of the military-industrial complex. It is associated with the atomic weapons growth period, extravagant military expenditures, and high dollar tragic military forays such as Vietnam and Iraq.
This ‘force’ within the civil service sectors of government is often considered by those with a different view as the checks and balances built within our governmental system that is tasked to enact and enforce rules and direction defined by legislation and the Constitution. The actions in most of these sectors are largely visible and certainly seem sufficiently open to challenge and adjustment through our legal system. Yet even those with this different view may demonstrate a shared position in covert actions taken by the military and intelligence agencies.
However, whether you ascribe to the existence of a deep state or not, we need to look carefully of what candidate Trump and his allies have in mind which is certainly more of a broad brushed approach — one that can create a Trumpian “deep state.”
A simplified view of what candidate Trump and his allies are promoting resides in the idea of the unitary executive theory. Under this theory, the President holds all authority over the Executive Branch. Accordingly, it is a hierarchical unified approach with the President at the top.
This may sound enticing to those that think the President will use such power to do what they like. The counter position is that the President under this theory can take the position that no one tells him what to do or how to do it — not the Congress or the Courts.
So, if you are an adherent to the unitary executive theory, what do you do? One approach is to make expanded lists of loyalists that will be appointed by the President throughout the government agencies. This is in process by Trump enablers with as many as 50,000 political appointees being batted around as the number of loyalists Trump would put in place.
The mechanism for this is an Executive Order that changes the status of civil service positions to “at will” positions. This was already attempted by Trump late in his first term. There was not enough time to complete the change and the order was rescinded by Biden.
Currently, the President can make 4,000 political appointments throughout the Executive Branch. Up to the top 5 layers of leadership in a department or agency can be appointed which, in and of itself, is much more than in other leading democracies.
Although 1,339 of these appointments need Senate approval, this can be worked around. For example, the former Trump administration circulated “acting” officials in positions to get around Senate approval — akin to assigning substitute teachers. The other option with control of many appointees is to not fill positions which can shut down entire units of government.
Some readers may think such a political patronage system is preferable where, for example, a President can lock up anyone that he or she wants. This is something Trump already has expressed in that he will “go after” political adversaries through the Justice Department. Do most Americans think it is a good idea to end the independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ)? It will likely not matter what most Americans think if one person can call the shots of this powerful legal entity.
This approach to expand the President’s power must consider who we are talking about to perform that role. Will we be better as a nation with a person in that role that pushes personal grudges to the extreme? Do we want a person that disparages, ridicules and endorses violence?
Do we want a person that has already demonstrated a willingness to appoint allies so unqualified and partisan to ignite massive resignations? This was indeed the case with the intention of placing Jeffery Clark as the head of the DOJ — a move that Trump balked on. Based on his extreme rhetoric of late, balking on any type of radical action certainly seems out of the question for Trump now.
Putting such power in one person leads to an even“deeper” style of governance as only loyal allies are spread throughout the entire government structure. This will permit effectively pushing aside the democratic principles of this nation. It is certainly a move that can lead to a shallow grave for this country as a world leader and beacon of freedom.
So, are we willing to trade supposedly one “deep state” for another with a Trump presidency? I, for one, would rather wrestle to control the one we have in a direction that benefits all of us rather than put any trust in the over-the-top narcissistic ego of one person.
W Laurence Doxsey, Retired, Former Director of Office of Sustainability for City of San Antonio, former Environmental Officer for US Department of Housing and Urban Development, former Sustainability Officer for City of Austin, resides outside Medina.
