The "Deep State," defined

Since President Trump took office, the term "deep state" has become popularized in American political discourse. We've all seen it the phrase, and some of us have used it.

But what, exactly, is it?

I had a general idea of what the term is supposed to describe, but had never really given it a lot of detailed thought until I saw someone use it in a discussion, then someone else asked them what they regarded the "deep state" to be.

That caused me to ponder the definition of the phrase, and I think I have come up with something that's pretty accurate.

"Deep state" means government civil service employees who oppose the elected leadership on policy or political grounds, and work from within to impede, sabotage, or resist the implementation of those policies. It also refers to political appointees who take their positions with their own agenda in mind and with the intent of instituting their own policies, instead of supporting and implementing the policies of the elected executive official for whom they work.

This is about the best simple definition I can think of to describe what can be a very complex situation. Boiled down, it means that there are forces within the government who are trying to thwart the implementation of official policy and working against the policy makers.

Elected executive officers, such as the American president or a state's governor, are entitled to put their own policies and initiatives into place. They are chosen by the entire electorate of the governed territory, and not by districts as are legislators. Legislative bodies have oversight and bill passage responsibilities, and in most cases are responsible for adopting or approving budgets, but the executive is in charge of developing policies and setting the tone of government. The executive has a number of high-level appointees that serve at his or her pleasure who are also responsible for implementing and administering policy. They are expected to be loyal to the executive and work to do the executive's wishes, subjugating their own ideas and desires in the process.

Career civil servants -- Kentucky refers to them as merit employees, because their employment is governed by the merit system established in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 18A -- are expected to implement and administer the policies dictated by the elected and appointed executives. These bureaucrats can, and often do, provide input into decisions. Many times, they're asked by the elected and appointed officials to weigh in on policies that are being considered. But in the end, whether they are in agreement with those decisions or not, it's their duty to do what they're told.

Yet so many of them won't carry out their duties. They stonewall, slow-walk, resist, and sometimes refuse to do their duty. They continue to operate as they see fit, or as they did under previous executives whose ideologies are more in tune with their own.

On the federal level, the "deep state" seems to be entrenched in the State Department and in the intelligence community. For whatever reason, diplomats seem to embrace a liberal philosophy. The career employees there seem to think they're still working for Barack Obama and implementing his foreign policy. The Trump administration has reversed course and has made it known that it's operating from a position that American interests come first. That doesn't seem to sit well with a lot of the diplomatic bureaucracy.

There's a "deep state" alive and well in Kentucky state government as well. Given the state's history of hiring Democrats, the majority of the workforce resisted the changes that recent Republican governors Ernie Fletcher and Matt Bevin tried to make in the way things have always been done. They didn't like their Republican governor or appointed agency leaders, so they weren't going to help them institute reforms.

In the private sector, any employee who doesn't carry out policy is usually disciplined or fired. Unfortunately, the same governmental policies that protect career employees from political retaliation also allow them to be insubordinate without much fear of reprise. The result is a seriously handicapped policy implementation, especially when conservatives are in power and liberals continue to populate the bowels of the bureaucracy.

At least when a political appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president or governor, can be fired when they go rogue and start pushing their own agenda instead of what their boss wants. And no, it's not obstruction of justice when they do.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "deep state." If anyone ever asks what you mean when you use that term, refer them to this definition. It may not be exact, but it's pretty close.