Unify The State

Unify The State

A Call To Expediently Reunify The Public Institutions Of The Government And The Deep State
11
views

Many would proclaim the United States to be a constitutional federal republic based off of representative democracy. We have institutions and apparatuses that support and, for the most part, embody this perspective of the civilization of the United States of America. However, aspects of this civilization has started to breakdown and become influenced, even fully shaped, by external forces that do not adhere to constitutional or democratic principles. An main example of this antithetical mentality, is the concept known as a "Deep State".

The first aspect to understand is to outline what exactly a "Deep State" is. It is most easily understood as a double government; one that function simultaneously along side the public state institutions we think of today. As Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glenno explains, there is the "dignified institutions"; which consist of the presidency, Congress, etc. This is the aspect that we would traditionally call the public "State". There is then the "efficient institutions"; such as military, law-enforcement, intelligence agencies, etc. These are the mechanisms that are making governmental domestic and foreign policy. This consists of what he describes as the double government, the "Deep State"; the State within the State. http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/amp.html?

The differences between these two can at times not only conflict with the interest of each other; but the Deep State typically supersedes its interests above that of the public State, and that of the citizen interest. This aspect of counter productive interests is what President Dwight Eisenhower warned when he spoke of the "Military-Industrial-Complex" in his farewell speech. Another president, John F. Kennedy, made a speech describing a similar concealed institution that goes unnoticed while acting within the public State. In a speech called "the President and the Press", President Kennedy made the following remarks:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know...Today no war has been declared—and however fierce the struggle may be—it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired...If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent...It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

Today, the Deep State has formed into a classified society onto itself. There is 5 million people with basic classification security clearance; while roughly 1 million people have top secret security clearance or above.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/24/5-1-million-americans-have-security-clearances-thats-more-than-the-entire-population-of-norway/?client=safari

The Deep State operates without accountability or responsibility; and has a track record of operating with imperialistic pretensions. If we fail to address this growing divided between those within the national security apparatuses, and the rest of the civilian population. We risk the Deep State growing into a civilization onto itself; disassociated from the greater society that sustains it. The immense amount of resources that are being expended on the operations and policies of the Deep State siphon off massive quantities of our publicly disclose the budget. The reallocation of large portions of this human and material resources away from obsolete systems; would be prime in being repurposed towards domestic efforts. Additionally to all the resources, there are structural and institutional apparatuses that could be repurposed and re-organized towards the benefit of the greater society and public State institutions.

With the Deep State and public State merged once more; The United States as a civilization would be capable of correcting its errors and changing course onto a new realm of civilization and cultural evolution. We must not forget that the Deep State is an aspect of our public institutions that we failed to pay attention to. It was allowed fall into the shadows; in which a lack of oversight dehumanized its policies. If we take the responsibility, and have the courage of accountability, we can reunite the deep state and public institutions back into a unified civilization. Allowing a new opportunity for a rejuvenated and restored relationship between the citizenry and governance.

Cover Image Credit: Dentons

Popular Right Now

'As A Woman,' I Don't Need To Fit Your Preconceived Political Assumptions About Women

I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

71192
views

It is quite possible to say that the United States has never seen such a time of divisiveness, partisanship, and extreme animosity of those on different sides of the political spectrum. Social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are saturated with posts of political opinions and are matched with comments that express not only disagreement but too often, words of hatred. Many who cannot understand others' political beliefs rarely even respect them.

As a female, Republican, college student, I feel I receive the most confusion from others regarding my political opinions. Whenever I post or write something supporting a conservative or expressing my right-leaning beliefs and I see a comment has been left, I almost always know what words their comment will begin with. Or in conversation, if I make my beliefs known and someone begins to respond, I can practically hear the words before they leave their mouth.

"As a woman…"

This initial phrase is often followed by a question, generally surrounding how I could publicly support a Republican candidate or maintain conservative beliefs. "As a woman, how can you support Donald Trump?" or "As a woman, how can you support pro-life policies?" and, my personal favorite, "As a woman, how did you not want Hillary for president?"

Although I understand their sentiment, I cannot respect it. Yes, being a woman is a part of who I am, but it in no way determines who I am. My sex has not and will not adjudicate my goals, my passions, or my work. It will not influence the way in which I think or the way in which I express those thoughts. Further, your mention of my sex as the primary logic for condemning such expressions will not change my adherence to defending what I share. Nor should it.

To conduct your questioning of my politics by inferring that my sex should influence my ideology is not only offensive, it's sexist.

It disregards my other qualifications and renders them worthless. It disregards my work as a student of political science. It disregards my hours of research dedicated to writing about politics. It disregards my creativity as an author and my knowledge of the subjects I choose to discuss. It disregards the fundamental human right I possess to form my own opinion and my Constitutional right to express that opinion freely with others. And most notably, it disregards that I am an individual. An individual capable of forming my own opinions and being brave enough to share those with the world at the risk of receiving backlash and criticism. All I ask is for respect of that bravery and respect for my qualifications.

Words are powerful. They can be used to inspire, unite, and revolutionize. Yet, they can be abused, and too comfortably are. Opening a dialogue of political debate by confining me to my gender restricts the productivity of that debate from the start. Those simple but potent words overlook my identity and label me as a stereotype destined to fit into a mold. They indicate that in our debate, you cannot look past my sex. That you will not be receptive to what I have to say if it doesn't fit into what I should be saying, "as a woman."

That is the issue with politics today. The media and our politicians, those who are meant to encourage and protect democracy, divide us into these stereotypes. We are too often told that because we are female, because we are young adults, because we are a minority, because we are middle-aged males without college degrees, that we are meant to vote and to feel one way, and any other way is misguided. Before a conversation has begun, we are divided against our will. Too many of us fail to inform ourselves of the issues and construct opinions that are entirely our own, unencumbered by what the mainstream tells us we are meant to believe.

We, as a people, have become limited to these classifications. Are we not more than a demographic?

As a student of political science, seeking to enter a workforce dominated by men, yes, I am a woman, but foremost I am a scholar, I am a leader, and I am autonomous. I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

7 Types Of People You're Bound To Get Stuck With In A Group Project, Mostly Unfortunately

Who is in your group can often determine how the project is going to go.

180
views

There are many different methods that teachers can use to get students to understand the material. Group work is often painful for a wide spectrum of personality types, as it means that students must work together and collaborate to create something that everyone can be proud of.

Who is in your group can often determine how the project is going to go, so here are seven types of people who could be in your group project:

1. The Leader

Image result for leader gif

The rubric is handed over and this person cannot wait to get started. Everyone wants this person in their group because they know that this person isn't going to let the group get a bad grade, and they will be really good at organizing and working hard.

2. The Shy One

Image result for shy gif

The words "group project" makes this person want to run away hide immediately. They'll do their part, but it's going to take a LOT of encouragement to get this person to give their opinion.

3. The Slacker

Image result for slacker gif

The kid that hands in their slides the night before. The kid that needs constant reminders that the project is due in x amount of days. The kid that thinks someone else will end up doing the work for them because they just truly don't care. Yeah, you probably know them all too well.

4. The Clown

Image result for funny guy gif

This is the person that maybe isn't taking the project so seriously, but they do love the idea of getting to make the whole group laugh. They love attention so they're going to give silly suggestions and get the group off topic. They aren't always helpful, but they can be fun.

5. The Best Friends

Image result for bffs gif

If you happen to get stuck in a group where two of the group members are "BFF's," you'll know it right away. The names will be read and the giggling will start. These two are gonna talk to each other the entire time, and not give any input, but on the bright side, they will probably go to Starbucks together and get their work done on time!

6. The One Who's "Too Cool"

Image result for cool guy gif

This person is far too cool for school, let alone this group project. They want everyone to know that they think this project is lame and that they don't care about grades. The perfect addition to any team! Right?!

7. The No Show

Image result for disappear gif

This person's name is called on the first day, but they aren't there. "We'll just assign them a part to do when they get back" you'll say. "They'll show up when we have to present" you'll say. Oh silly, productive student, this person is not showing up.

Related Content

Facebook Comments