Skip to content

The "Deep State" - Reality or Conspiracy Theory?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
The "Deep State" - Reality or Conspiracy Theory?

Details

The weather forecast for Sunday looks good, so I've scheduled our meetup for Washington Square Park again, between 6th & 7th Streets on Walnut in Olde City. Although it's supposed to rain in the early morning, the weather forecast says it should be clear & sunny by noon with temperatures in the mid 70s, and there's plenty of shaded areas in the park that should still be dry. If you don't want to sit on the grass, just bring a folding chair or picnic blanket to sit on. You can also bring any type of food or drink you want, although I don't think alcohol is allowed in the park.

(If the weather changes, our fallback spot will be Café Walnut, which is right off the square at 703 Walnut Street.)

The park is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"THE DEEP STATE": REALITY OR CONSPIRACY THEORY?

This discussion will center around various conspiracy theories about "globalist elites" trying to erect a "New World Order" (NWO) or running a "shadow government". We'll contrast these conspiracy theories with the various major theories in political science about the "deep state", and we'll try to ascertain what level of conspiring between elite individuals & institutions should be expected and what strains credibility. After this, we'll shift to an evaluation of the military-industrial complex, the intelligence community, and the federal bureaucracy.

We'll build on some of the ideas we discussed in our meetup on conspiracy theories back in January, which you can find here - https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/236044416/

In that earlier discussion, we discussed the various psychological factors that contribute to conspiracy thinking, as well as why conspiracies become less probable the larger they are & the longer they last. We finished by looking at why the linguist & political activist Noam Chomsky prefers "institutional analysis" to conspiracy theories: (1) It doesn't waste time & energy arguing about alleged secrets but rather bases its arguments on facts in the public domain; (2) It implies we need to reform the structure of society rather than just remove some bad actors from power. We then looked at why the political scientist Michael Parenti thinks that when it comes to secret planning by government agencies, institutional analysis & conspiracy theories merge - after all, when it comes to the CIA & NSA, we're essentially looking at institutionalized conspiracies. This discussion is an attempt to respond to Parenti's objections to Chomsky pooh-poohing conspiracy theories about the government, and ask: Is the 'Deep State' a real threat to democracy that we should take seriously, or simply a more highbrow version of other irrational conspiracy theories?

As you can see from the first section of the discussion outline, the skeptic community has done a pretty good job addressing how to distinguish real or probable cases of government conspiracies from highly improbable conspiracy theories like a fake moon landing, the use of "chemtrails" or water fluoridation to slowly poison the public, or the 9/11 attacks as an "inside job". However, there hasn't been a lot of discussion of the "deep state" within the skeptic community, aside from the single article I found in CSICOP shortly after the Edward Snowden leaks came out. This is why most of what you see below comes from various journalists & policy wonks.

Unfortunately, I had trouble finding empirical studies that answered overarching questions about the power of the military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, or the federal bureaucracy. I did find articles that gave budgets for each of these sectors, which could be considered a very loose proxy measure for their power. I also found some articles that addressed more narrowly focused issues like the political influence of the defense lobby, the evidence that mass surveillance helps catch terrorists, and the empirical measures used to estimate corruption.

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the major points in these debates among both skeptics, political scientists & journalists over the concept of the "deep state". As usual, I certainly don't expect you to watch all the videos & read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the videos linked under each topic, which come to just over 41 minutes total. This is more time than I typically ask people to spend, so you may want to skip the videos in the first section and just read the 2 short articles in that section. The rest of the articles in the other sections are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 5 topics in the order presented here and we'll spend about 20-25 minutes on each section.

HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH TRUE (OR REASONABLY PROBABLE) GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACIES FROM FALSE (OR HIGHLY IMPROBABLE) "SHADOW GOVERNMENT" CONSPIRACY THEORIES? WHAT TYPES OF COGNITIVE BIASES, LOGICAL FALLACIES & POLITICAL BLINDSPOTS SHOULD WE LOOK OUT FOR?

1a) Dave Rubin w/ Michael Shermer, "Conspiracy Theories with Michael Shermer" (video - 7:56 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGGjCZbMh9Y

Shermer mentions both his "Conspiracy Detector Kit" and Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (both listed below). He points out that part of the psychological cause of conspiracy theories is agency attribution error (similar to religion). He points out that political biases lead people to construct conspiracy theories about their ideological opponents.

1b) Trace Dominguez, "13 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True" (video - 10:43 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uriecOJsCYE

Trace lists several real government conspiracies: Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, Operation Paperclip, MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, the Nayirah testimony leading up to the Gulf War, the NSA Prism program, the Tuskegee study, COINTELPRO. He also lists Big Tobacco hiding health risks & chemical companies hiding the risks associated with asbestos.

Shermer notes that real conspiracies exist, but that we need some criteria so separate them from the less credible ones. He suggests that the more a conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that it's grounded in reality:

  1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

  2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

  3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

  4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

  5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

  6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

  7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

  8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

  9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

  • Maria Popova, "The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan's Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking" (short blog post)

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

In a chapter in his 1996 book The Demon Haunted World entitled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection," Carl Sagan laid out a set of cognitive tools for scientific skepticism that can also help with determining whether a particular conspiracy theory is more or less probable:

  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

WHAT IS THE "DEEP STATE" CONCEPT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE? SHOULD THE "DEEP STATE" BE CONSIDERED MONOLITHIC OR FRAGMENTED? ARE THE NON-ELECTED ASPECTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT A SOURCE OF STABILITY OR CORRUPTION?

  1. Marc Ambinder, "Five myths about the deep state" (article & video - 3:04 min.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-deep-state/2017/03/10/ddb09b54-04da-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.82afce429386

Ambinder criticizes 5 myths about the deep state:

Myth #1 - "It’s the hidden source of national security policy."

Myth #2 - "The deep state evades oversight."

Myth #3 - "The deep state is unchangeable."

Myth #4 - "The deep state leaks gratuitously."

Myth #5 - "The military-industrial complex is the deep state."

  • Lambert Stretcher, "Deep State? Or Shallow Focus?" (short article)

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/deep-state-shallow-focus.html

  • Greg Grandin, "What Is the Deep State? Even if we assume the concept is valid, surely it’s not useful to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic." (medium-length article)

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-is-the-deep-state/

  • David A. Graham, "There Is No American 'Deep State'. Experts on Turkish politics say the use of that term misunderstands what it means in Turkey—and the ways that such allegations can be used to enable political repression." (medium-length article)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/why-its-dangerous-to-talk-about-a-deep-state/517221/

  • Mike Lofgren, "Yes, There Is a Deep State—But Not the Right Wing’s Caricature" (long article)

https://lobelog.com/yes-there-is-a-deep-state-but-not-the-right-wings-caricature/

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE POWER OF THE "MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX"? TO WHAT EXTENT DO DONATIONS FROM DEFENSE CONTRACTORS INFLUENCE NOT ONLY WHO GETS CONTRACTS BUT ALSO OUR FOREIGN POLICY?

  1. Sam Ellis, "This jet fighter is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it" (video - 7:12 min.)

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/1/30/14382686/jet-fighter-f35-congress-trump

Trump suggested canceling the F-35 in a tweet in December. The F-35 project is 70% over budget and 7 years late, with each plane costing $115M. However, it probably can't be cancelled due to the "political engineering" that went into it -- it supports 146,000 jobs in 46 states, which means it has overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. There's also subcontractors in 8 countries working on parts, and cancelling the F-35 would hurt the US's relationship with those countries.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2012/06/21/contributionss-and-contracts/

  • Alexander Cohen, "The Defense Industry’s Surprising 2016 Favorites: Bernie & Hillary" (short article)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783

SHOULD WE THINK OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AS AN ALL-KNOWING "SURVEILLANCE STATE" OR A BUMBLING BUREAUCRACY DROWNING IN DATA? WHAT CAN WE DISCERN FROM THE EDWARD SNOWDEN REVELATIONS? WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE STOPS TERRORISM?

  1. Shane Miller, "Information Overload: The Failure of NSA Intelligence" (video - 4:49 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlyeEbUiXJI

Harris notes that the NSA is much better at collecting data than spotting errors and/or analyzing their data. Their terrorist suspect database gets 4-8K names per day, and the master database now has 500K names, but the data is prone to error & data is scattered across dozens of separate databases. For example, US intelligence had plenty of data on the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab prior to his attempt to blow up an airplane in 2009 but never acted on it.

  • Michael German, "The US Intelligence Community Is Bigger Than Ever, But Is It Worth the Cost?" (medium-length article)

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/us-intelligence-community-bigger-ever-it-worth-it/104799/

  • Barton Gellman and Greg Miller, "'Black Budget' details U.S. operations, goals" (medium-length article)

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/black-budget-details-us-operations-goals

HOW BIG & POWERFUL IS THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY? DOES THE "CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX" GIVE US AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S WRONGDOING?

  1. Craig Benzine, "Controlling Bureaucracies: Crash Course Government and Politics #17" (video - 7:24 min, start at 0:44 & watch til 6:53)

https://youtu.be/12MCVhfo4j4?t=44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12MCVhfo4j4&t=2s)

Craig gives a general overview of the ways the government bureucracy can be controlled - either by limiting their power (by before-the-fact or after-the-fact procedural controls) or by limiting their size. The president can nominate admin heads, and Congress can launch investigations. Congress can eliminate agencies completely but this is hard, so more common methods of limiting federal bureaucracy are deregulation, devolution or privatization. However, Craig notes that bureaucracies tend to grow even under administrations that promised to cut them, largely because they do many necessary things & they create their own constituencies, i.e. vested interests that benefit from them.

  • Matthew Dickinson, "The Perils of Government By Remote Control" (short blog post)

https://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/tag/presidential-control-of-the-bureaucracy/

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group