DEBATE: Is the "deep state" real?

Aaron Pete & Evan Solomon debate the topic.

I’ve had the opportunity to engage with some of the sharpest minds on pressing issues. My recent discussion with Evan Solomon, a seasoned journalist, and political commentator, on the concept of the "deep state" was particularly enlightening.

The conversation offered a chance to explore a topic that, for many, straddles the line between legitimate concern and conspiracy theory. While our views diverged in significant ways, the exchange underscored the importance of scrutinizing the power structures that influence our lives.

My View The term "deep state" often evokes images of shadowy figures pulling the strings behind the scenes, but I see it as something more tangible. For me, the deep state represents a network of entrenched bureaucrats, corporate lobbyists, and military-industrial entities that hold sway over government policies, often independently of the democratic process. This idea is not about endorsing a conspiracy but rather acknowledging the concentration of power that can subvert the will of the people.

My concern is rooted in historical and contemporary examples where the actions of unelected officials and powerful interest groups have seemingly overridden the interests of the general public. Take, for instance, the 2008 financial crisis. The government’s bailout of big banks, while perhaps necessary to prevent economic collapse, left many feeling that the system was rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected. This perception contributes to the growing distrust in government institutions, fueling the belief that a "deep state" operates with impunity.

Evan Solomon’s Rebuttal: Evan, however, offered a counterpoint that challenged my interpretation. He argued that the deep state, as commonly discussed, is more of a political construct used by populist movements to undermine trust in government rather than a reflection of reality. He suggested that framing the permanent government—our civil service—as a deep state oversimplifies the complexity of governance and unfairly targets public servants who work within the system.

Evan emphasized that every government has checks and balances designed to prevent any one entity from wielding unchecked power. According to him, the deep state narrative can be a dangerous tool, easily weaponized to discredit institutions and erode public trust. He pointed out that while corporate influence and lobbying are real issues, they do not equate to the existence of a coordinated deep state. His view was clear: we should be skeptical of power, but not at the expense of sowing unnecessary fear and distrust.

Debating the Military-Industrial Complex and Corporate Influence One of the most engaging parts of our discussion revolved around the military-industrial complex and corporate influence on government. I argued that these entities often operate with significant influence, sometimes steering policies in ways that benefit them at the public’s expense. The revolving door between government and big business, where former officials take up lucrative positions in the private sector and vice versa, is a prime example of how deep state dynamics could manifest.

Evan, however, urged caution in making these connections. While he acknowledged the legitimate concerns surrounding corporate influence, he warned against conflating these issues with the deep state narrative. He stressed that while these are challenges inherent in any democratic system, they should not be mistaken for evidence of a deep state. His point was that while lobbying and corporate influence are real, they do not necessarily indicate the existence of a coordinated effort by unelected entities to control the government.

The Role of Media: Diverging Views Our debate also touched on the role of the media in either perpetuating or debunking the idea of the deep state. I expressed concern that media outlets, whether knowingly or unknowingly, might sometimes act as gatekeepers of the establishment, filtering the narratives that reach the public. This can create the impression that the media is complicit in maintaining the status quo, reinforcing the belief in a deep state.

Evan countered by defending the integrity of the media, arguing that while biases exist, the diversity of media outlets today ensures a range of perspectives. He highlighted the rigorous standards of journalism that many outlets uphold, including fact-checking and editorial independence. Evan also pointed out that the rise of independent media, like my own podcast, is evidence of the media’s evolving landscape, where alternative voices can challenge mainstream narratives. He cautioned against the deep state narrative, arguing that it can lead to unwarranted distrust in all institutions, including the media.

Conclusion: The Need for Vigilant Dialogue Our debate on the deep state was a reminder of the importance of dialogue in understanding complex issues. While I maintain that there are elements within the government and corporate sectors that exert undue influence, Evan’s perspective offered a critical counterbalance, emphasizing the need for caution in how we frame these issues. The deep state, whether real or perceived, is a powerful concept that taps into broader concerns about democracy, power, and accountability. It is through discussions like these that we can better navigate the complexities of governance and ensure that our institutions serve the public good.

I was reminded that debates like this are not just academic—they are essential to a healthy democracy. Whether you believe in the deep state or not, the conversation around it reflects deeper anxieties about the state of our political system. And in the end, it’s these conversations that bring us closer to the truth, even if that truth is multifaceted and, at times, elusive.