The Deep State: A Necessary Evil?

On the problem of democracy in a turbulent geopolitical age

The geopolitical upheaval resulting from Donald Trump’s foreign policy realignments often resembles somebody picking up a dusty chessboard, where the pieces have all settled, throwing it up in the air, and kicking it through a window when it lands. The so-called “Don-Bro Doctrine” is in the process of severing longstanding agreements with the unsufferable Europoor Globalists, enforcing a mercy killing of the Ukrainian Army and Zelensky while simultaneously redefining the Art of the Deal to mean “Whatever you say, Vlad?” Long gone are the days when Britain’s Foreign Secretary, the ridiculous David Lammy, could pompously sit at the UN and lecture the Russian representative about his own blackness.

The American people voted for America First, and with the inevitable exception of Israel, it looks as if they’re going to get it. As Shadow President Musk is fond of saying “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”. In reality, this, more often than not, manifests as Vox Populi, Vox Confusus. The will of the people is a fickle, irrational thing, and basing long-term geopolitical strategy on its ebb and flow is not likely to lead to stable or coherent outcomes.

Today, the so-called “Deep State” is associated with sending eye-wateringly large sums of taxpayer money to subvert and trans nations around the world via woke doctrines. But formerly, it was a deeply embedded bureaucracy aligned with the policy-making apparatus of intelligence agencies, central banks, and lobbyists. The politicians we voted for came and went, but the Deep State and its long-term aims remained unhindered. Take immigration as an example. The harder populists voted against it, the more they got. It was as if some hulk creature absorbed the blows and increased its mass and hatred the more it was provoked.

As a system of governance to be ruled by, it is demoralising, infuriating, and obscene in its deceit. Grotesque and morally bankrupt as it is, it is at least predictable and consistent, and long-term policies could be implemented knowing that the populi would not mess things up.

The same could be said of the West writ large on the global stage, with America setting the objectives, tone, and longer-term strategy by which its vassals would abide. The Don-Bro Doctrine is currently set on sending Europeans to geopolitical Fat Camp, while extracting America from the Ukraine situation by playing footsie with Russia (which is in itself an attempt to do a reverse Nixon/Kissinger and prize apart China and Russia). In the fullness of time, a rejuvenated America can square off against China.

It’s a nice plan. The only problem is that the masses voted for it and can presumably vote out of it in four years at the next election.

It is easy to understand the Trump administration’s eagerness to de-escalate tensions with Russia and to grasp that Ukraine is surplus to requirements in America’s national interest. The haste, which could be called reckless, with which the policy is being pursued appears to offer Putin everything he wishes. The big hope is that a detente with Russia, an easing away from China, will allow America to tackle China one on one.

The problem is, by the time this plan comes to fruition, the 78-year-old Trump could have been shuffled off to Mar-a-Lago, and a new breed of Democrat might be in the Oval Office. And Putin, the Chinese, and the Eurocrats know it. Notice, too, that all factions are entrenched within their respective power structures and are prone to long-term planning previously secured by the American Deep State.

Thus, the Russians are incentivised to “make hay while the sun shines” and take as much as possible from Trump while quietly keeping their tight-knit relations with the Chinese rock solid because, for all they know, they’ll be facing an antagonist America in five short years.

Fundamentally, the problem lies in combining geopolitical strategy with adhering to democratic ideals. Perhaps it is a tiny surprise that Western populations had almost no say in the formation or expansion of NATO, and most of those people had no say in being absorbed into the European Union.

This is, however, nothing new. Elizabeth I did not ask the English people for their input in her support of the Dutch, which resulted in King Philip II of Spain despatching the armada to invade England. Not only did Queen Elizabeth have something akin to an embryonic Deep State run by Sir Francis Walsingham, but she also reigned for 44 years. Her long-term strategic goals were to secure a Protestant England on the periphery of a hostile, Catholic continent.

Similarly, Vladimir Putin inherited the wreckage of the USSR at the turn of the Millennium and has been able to set Russian objectives for a quarter-century. However, Russia also has its own deep state, just to be sure.

In geopolitical terms, longevity, continuity, and stability count for more than the people’s will. In this way, a permanent bureaucracy that cannot easily be uninstalled and transcends the red/blue showbiz is an eminently sensible safeguard against the whims of the common man.

The sudden about-face on the Russian/Ukraine war is apt here. Regardless of what your stance is on the war and who is ultimately to blame, many Western nations, NATO allies, went “all-in” on supporting Ukraine, only now to be deserted by the largest country within the coalition, insulted, and left in the cold as their erstwhile ally frantically builds bridges with Russia, the country they were all unified against just three months ago.

The European elites of the Western coalition seem like provincial Soviet commissars who continue to perform long-standing functions after the bloc’s central core has sunk — tentacles left twitching in a trap after the main body of the octopus has fled.

Moreover, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will likely still be in power when Donald Trump leaves office. Britain’s next election does not have to occur until August 2029.

The question, then, is how to ensure the longevity and continuity of a regime based on vibes and a cult of personality rather than shadowy men in grey suits. No matter how one looks at it, whether the policy is one of returning to the traditional NATO, Western alliance configuration, or the America Alone policy of MAGA, democracy stands in the way of achieving either.

America’s rivals do not know whether they’re going to get a sweet pipeline deal, tariff slap, a barrage of ATACMS, or a gay pride parade from the increasingly schizophrenic hegemon.

Thus, if we’re honest about it, the proper choice is whether to continue delegating power to faceless and easily corruptible managers making long-term policy decisions or to have a “president for life” who can continue the Trumpian vision for decades to come. Of course, it is perfectly possible that JD Vance wins the next election and serves a full eight-year term in which the MAGA vision can become a reality. However, world leaders have no way of knowing whether that will happen or if instead they will be dealing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The sentimental attachment to democracy is so strong that such a discussion seems borderline heresy. Yet, the historical outlier is the belief that the masses dictate geopolitical and Great Power strategy. An alternative theory would be that the Deep State is still dictating policy in the Trump administration. Still, if that is the case, European leaders certainly don’t seem aware of it, and thus, the issues of uncertainty are merely compounded.

No matter how one looks at it, the veneer of American democracy has become a hindrance, and everyone is looking for a long-term means to create a safe and secure society.