Keeping Brennan as CIA Director = Triumph of Secret Government

[tblue37]

18. I do believe that the "deep government" has a great deal of power and

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

is not answerable to the people or to our elected representatives. I suspect that there are other "actors" within the deep government, but I have no doubt that elements within the intelligence agencies are its major component.

I believe that the president has little control over the operatives in the "deep government," and that in fact those people and agencies are a potential threat to the president and to others in the visible government. I also suspect that those politicians and appointed officials are made to understand the limits of their control (and perhaps even of their safety, whether the threats are made in terms of physical harm or of destroying reputations). J. Edgar Hoover used the FBI and its intelligence-gathering capabilities to control politicians in powerful offices, including presidents and members of the House and Senate.

Politicians like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other such power-mad war criminals may or may not themselves be driving powers within the deep government, but since they actually approve of the power of the deep government agencies and eagerly pursue the same goals by the same means, there is no conflict between them and such agencies.

But other elected and appointed politicians have only limited (and probably largely cosmetic) control or influence over the goals and behavior of the intelligence community and other actors (which would consist not only of the agencies and actors that we can see, but also of those that are hidden from public awareness).

I have always suspected that Obama is a "stealth" progressive, doing enough sucking up and mollifying on the surface to keep the real Powers That Be from taking more drastic action to block his initiatives. Meanwhile, he moves policy incrementally, until it starts to add up to real progress.

That is what I think has happened in his administration with gay rights, the ACA, the resistance to pressure to get into further military entanglements abroad, etc.

Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of this pattern. He wanted that bureau, and he wanted Warren to run it. But although she was able to set it up, and although she (and he) wanted her to head the agency, when Obama realized that there was no way to get her appointment past the Republican obstruction in Congress, he acceded to reality and did not appoint her. But they did get that agency set up, and although the Republican House refuses to fund it in a way that will allow it to do its job properly, I think that Obama believes/hopes that getting the structure established will lay a foundation for its improved functioning down the line.

That is how the ACA has worked, too. It enabled a number of significant improvements right away, but even more important, like Social Security in its early years, the ACA created a benefit that will be difficult for Republicans to snatch away from those who now have it, and it also established a framework for further improvement. SS was also limited in its effective benefits at first, but it was gradually improved over time.

Re: health care: At the time there was no plausible way to get a real single-payer solution—or even a public option—past congressional intransigence, but certain ACA features create opportunities for real improvements, while also making it difficult for Republicans to completely undo the good that has already been done by the law.

ON EDIT: My hyperactive autocorrect changed "deep government" in my subject line to "eel government." I just fixed it.