Tehon
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2015
- 8,938
- 1,239
- 275
There is turnover in every new administration. I certainly understand why it would be worse for Trump but those people that are elected and remain in government have a responsibility to the office to carry out their duties.Partisan politics is ideologically driven, this isn't. I already gave the example of the state department. Both Democrats and Republicans leave. They don't leave because Trump is a Republican. They leave because of the way the people he put in place acted towards the institution they represent. In that sense they are apolitical. They have a job to do, Trump is hampering their ability to do that job, so they react. It's the reason for instance that you see conflicting messages coming out of the administration about Russia. On the one hand you have Trump tweeting about the fake Russia investigation. On the other hand you see statements coming out of the intelligence community. It's not like a lot of people think, Trump trying to sow confusion. It's the CIA, NSA, Homeland security protecting the integrity of their departments against Trump.But isn't that just partisan politics? My understanding of the deep state is that it transcends partisan politics. That is an aspect that makes it visible.That's what I mean by a built in inertia.Okay, I can see how, in a world of competing self interests, there are also those who would try to get in the way.It keeps him in check by leaking. It keeps him in check by for instance dragging their feet in implementing new policies. It keeps him in check by the simple expediency of leaving government employ. If the state department loses most of it's top career diplomats, isn't it safe to assume that this hinders Trumps ability to implement his foreign policy? If you can describe what he does as policy. It's one thing to declare the N-Korean nuclear threat over. Quite another to draft agreements and negotiate the nuts and bolts of that agreement. These are just a couple of examples.I mean, I agree that it isn't nefarious and that it is diffuse. I don't agree that it keeps Trump in check. It uses Trump. Trump is part of it by virtue of being the president. Obama was the same.
It's just a way of describing how we are ruled by plutocrats.
I get what you are saying but it gets me no closer to understanding the continuity of agenda from one administration to the next, regardless of partisanship, in some areas of government control while others languish in partisan bickering. The endless war on the ME is the most glaring example.