That Deep State Against Trump Doesn’t Exist, As The NY Times Doesn’t Prove


A quite gorgeous piece of illogic is on display in the New York Times. The claim is that there’s no “deep state” – called here “steady state” – opposition to Donald Trump, this coming from someone who proudly announces that he’s part of the deep state – sorry, steady state – opposition to Donald Trump. Well, yes, so we can stop looking for the mole among those who have attended a philosophy class at least – even those aware of what logic is.

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Isn’t that just the most perfect evidence that there isn’t a deep state trying to thwart the duly elected President? As Trump himself points out:

Possible that that’s going a tad too far but then perhaps not.

The point being that this is all supposed to be a democracy. Meaning that the people do, within the rules laid down, get to have their say. As with Brexit in the UK, perhaps it all is a bad idea, maybe it shouldn’t have been voted for but it was and that’s that if we’re to remain that democratic country. So with Trump. Sure, I’m not hugely in favour (I was most definitely anti-Hills though) but the whole thing was thrashed out according to those rules over a year or two and he won.

The very intimation that there are those resorting to frustrating the duly elected is that evidence of the existence of that deep state isn’t it? And don’t forget this has much more usually been a left wing complaint. That whoever gets elected it’s still the establishment that has the actual power.

The opinion piece comes a day after excerpts of Bob Woodward’s book on the Trump White House suggested that his top officials have been engaged in an “administrative coup d’etat” to protect the nation from the president, including removing key documents from his desk before he has a chance to sign them.

This, then, presents itself as first-hand acknowledgement that the coup is real.

The courtiers are imposing their own policies, rather than acting upon the President’s desires that is. Well, hmm, when we think of Charles II of Spain that was probably a good idea but less so with someone who isn’t obviously nuts enough to impeach.

One example given is officials pushing on with sanctions against Russia despite the president’s opposition to them. Across the administration people are “choosing to put country first”. The author says this is not the “deep state” but the “steady state”.

That is actually that older lefty complaint, isn’t it? That the establishment will frustrate the radical who gains elective office? All of which leads to another marvel of the Trump Presidency. He’s managed to get the left to applaud the Establishment’s control of power. Wonders never cease, eh?