I began with the following exceptionally lengthy prompt, a practice I encourage for anyone working on difficult problems that require nuanced analysis:

“A friend of mine has devised a comprehensive analysis of the idea of ‘deep state.’ Until recently the idea was treated as a kind of conspiracy theory, though there is one piece of historical evidence that should have educated at least the US public about its reality 64 years ago: President Eisenhower’s farewell speech warning about the military-industrial-congressional complex. Here are some of my ideas I have shared with my friend. Can you offer some complementary analysis and even critique of my own analysis?

Dear LLM friend, you should note two things. The first is that I emphasize the crucial cultural dimension that most commentators on the topic ignore, as they focus on analyzing institutional frameworks and power relationships. The second is that my human friend and I agree not only that the existence of the collection of phenomena we call the deep state needs to be acknowledged and analyzed, but also that it is in the interest of humanity and democracy that it be either dismantled or remodeled, and that whatever emerges is endowed with a strong dose of transparency.

I’m eager to see your comments. Here is the gist of the analysis I shared with my friend.

If we are among those seeking to contribute to the process, we must ask ourselves this question: Can it be managed in a way that prevents the usual pendulum effect? In his short poem “The Great Day” W B Yeats summarized it in these terms:

HURRAH for revolution and more cannon-shot!

A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.

Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!

The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on. 

It was possible to think that way a century ago, but there was no deep state then. The problem is that ever since World War II, for any nation to be a great power and to some extent even a middling power, it must adopt features of a deep state. Those features are not just institutional, but also cultural, as your model demonstrates, with intellectuals, media and NGOs at the three corners. 

That cultural dimension actually provides some measure of hope. And I think technology, which now has a major impact on culture (i.e. how people think rather than what they think), will play a major role. But it can move in either direction: towards consolidating a deep state or dissolving it. In the latter case, it produces two new hypotheses: instituting a new deep state (the pendulum effect) or allowing something new to emerge. 

I continue to hope the second could prevail, but it means spreading the effort over a wide expanse of thought, effort and action. It must also be focused not on one deep state that could be challenged or overthrown, but on multiple deep states, calling into question the makeup and role of everything grouped under the heading of security. One deep state is about ‘national security.’ Two deep states are about the concept evoked during the Cold War but never taken seriously: ‘indivisible security.’ To be truly indivisible there must be not just a technical and formal notion of collective security but also a cultural notion of security fostering a sense of solidarity that supersedes and even trivializes purely national interests.  

The post-WWII consensus theorized the UN playing that role of defining the terms of indivisible security, with the expectation that there would be means to enforce it. But expecting enforcement to emerge on its own is delusional. The mechanism that fell into place was mutually assured destruction (MAD). That also meant that there had to be two players mutually threatening one another. What that produced was the opposite of culturally founded security. Instead it gave us the kind of psychologically manipulated security your model reveals. It made the architecture of a deep state appear to be a necessary component of government. (In many ways, Hitler’s Nazi model became the reference for its cultural basis, built around a military-industrial complex, but without the superficial layer of overt and active racism).

The current geopolitical turmoil, which Trump has so effectively exacerbated (but which he inherited from previous presidents going back to Lyndon Johnson), has provoked a visible cultural change, at least to the extent that people are not only increasingly aware of the reality of the deep state, but sense that it more than anything else threatens the ideal of democracy.

This is truly a Zeitenwende moment, not just for Germany — whose Zeit (time), in the words of Hamlet, is clearly ‘out of joint’ — but for the world.” 

Google’s Gemini provided this equally lengthy response. In a follow-up article, I shall comment Gemini’s response, which I found extremely pertinent:

“Your analysis of the ‘deep state’ offers a compelling and nuanced perspective, particularly by emphasizing its crucial cultural dimensions and the aspiration to move beyond cyclical power shifts towards a more genuinely democratic and secure global order. It’s a rich framework, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with your ideas. Here’s some complementary analysis and critique, offered in the spirit of constructive dialogue:

1. The Nature and Elusiveness of the ‘Deep State’

You rightly point out that the idea of the ‘deep state’ has moved from the fringes of discourse towards more mainstream recognition, with Eisenhower’s prescient 1961 warning as a key historical marker. Your conceptualization of it as a ‘collection of phenomena’ involving institutional frameworks, power relationships, and significantly, cultural underpinnings (intellectuals, media, NGOs) is a strong starting point.

Complementary Analysis: The elusive nature of the ‘deep state’ is one of its defining characteristics. It’s rarely a formal, monolithic entity with a membership list. Instead, it can be seen as a confluence of embedded interests, long-standing bureaucratic structures (intelligence agencies, military leadership, key civil service posts), and private sector actors (defense contractors, financial institutions, tech giants) that share a common understanding of national interest and operational continuity, often irrespective of which political party is in power. This makes it resilient to normal democratic accountability.

Critique/Nuance: While your model places intellectuals, media, and NGOs ‘at the three corners’ as cultural components, it’s worth considering that these sectors are also crucial spaces for contesting deep state influence. Journalists break stories that expose covert actions, intellectuals develop critiques of power, and NGOs advocate for transparency and human rights, sometimes in direct opposition to entrenched state interests. The cultural sphere is thus a battleground, not solely an apparatus of the deep state.

2. The ‘Necessity’ of Deep State Features and the Dilemma of Reform

Your assertion that ‘ever since World War II, for any nation to be a great power…it has to adopt features of a deep state’ is a stark but largely accurate observation, especially concerning national security, intelligence gathering, and technological development. This, however, presents a profound dilemma for your aim to dismantle or remodel it.

Complementary Analysis: This perceived necessity often stems from the anarchic nature of the international system, where security is self-help, and a competitive advantage in intelligence, defense, and technology is seen as vital for survival and influence. The long-term planning, secrecy, and resource allocation required for these capabilities often bypass or manipulate standard democratic processes.

Critique: If these features are indeed ‘necessary’ for a nation to maintain its standing or even defend itself effectively in the current global landscape, then dismantling them without a viable alternative for ensuring security could be seen as unilaterally disarming or destabilizing. This doesn’t invalidate the desire for reform, but it highlights the immense challenge: how do you reduce unaccountable power without also catastrophically reducing a state’s capacity to function in a complex world? Your focus on ‘indivisible security’ is a response to this, which I’ll address further.

3. The Cultural Shift, Technology, and Avoiding Yeats’s Pendulum

Your hope that technology and a broader cultural understanding can help avert the ‘pendulum effect’ described by Yeats is an important aspiration. The idea is that a mere replacement of elites doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics of power.

Complementary Analysis: Technology indeed has a dual capacity. It offers unprecedented tools for surveillance, information control, and autonomous weaponry, potentially consolidating deep state power. Conversely, as you note, it can empower citizen journalism, enable secure communication for activists, and facilitate global awareness and mobilization, creating pressure for transparency and change. The current ‘cultural change’ you observe, where more people sense the deep state’s threat to democracy, is significantly amplified by this technological shift in information dissemination.

Critique: While technology can foster awareness, it can also lead to what some call ‘participatory illusion,’ where online activity feels like meaningful action but doesn’t translate into structural change. Furthermore, the same technologies that might help ‘dissolve’ one form of deep state could facilitate the rise of new, perhaps even less accountable, power centers – for instance, powerful tech corporations with their own opaque algorithmic governance and vast data empires, or decentralized networks with malign intent. The challenge is not just about awareness but about translating that awareness into effective, sustainable mechanisms of democratic control.

4. From ‘National Security’ to ‘Indivisible Security’

Your proposal to shift focus from singular ‘national security’ (underpinning one deep state) to ‘indivisible security’ (implying a challenge to multiple deep states and fostering solidarity) is a visionary and ethically compelling idea.

Complementary Analysis: This resonates with concepts of human security, which broaden the definition of security beyond state-centric military concerns to include economic, environmental, health, and personal security for all individuals. The failure of the UN to fully embody this, and the subsequent reliance on MAD, starkly illustrates the grip of the national security paradigm.

Critique: The primary obstacle to ‘indivisible security’ remains the persistent power of national sovereignty and the deep-seated mistrust between states. Achieving a ‘cultural notion of security fostering a sense of solidarity that supersedes and even trivializes purely national interests’ is an immense undertaking. How can this be fostered in a world where geopolitical competition is arguably intensifying, and where some states actively promote narrowly nationalistic or civilizationalist ideologies? While the Cold War’s bipolar MAD was one manifestation, the current multipolar world presents its own complex challenges to collective security, with diverse actors and interests. The mechanisms for building such profound global solidarity need to be imagined and painstakingly constructed, perhaps starting with smaller, regional, or issue-specific forms of cooperation.

5. The Nazi Model Reference and the Nature of Deep State Ideology

Your reference to Hitler’s Nazi model as a (non-racist) cultural basis for a military-industrial complex is provocative and points to the efficiency of a state geared towards total mobilization.

Nuance/Critique: While the Nazi regime certainly exemplified an extreme fusion of state, industry, and ideology for national power and expansion, the comparison requires careful handling. The ‘cultural basis’ of deep states in democratic or semi-democratic nations, while potentially manipulative or based on fear (as your friend’s model suggests), generally operates under a different legitimizing narrative (e.g., protecting democracy, maintaining stability, ensuring economic prosperity). The danger lies not necessarily in an overt, jackbooted totalitarianism, but in a more subtle, creeping erosion of democratic accountability, justified by perpetual emergency or existential threat. The ‘psychologically manipulated security’ you mention is key here – it often relies on constructing an ‘other’ or a constant sense of threat that makes the deep state’s actions seem perpetually necessary.

6. The ‘Zeitenwende’ Moment

Your characterization of the current era as a ‘Zeitenwende’ is apt. The conjunction of geopolitical shifts, technological acceleration, and growing public awareness of issues like the deep state does suggest a potential turning point.

Complementary Analysis: This awareness creates an opportunity. Crises can delegitimize old ways of doing things and open space for new ideas. The very turmoil you mention, exacerbated by figures like Trump, has paradoxically made more people question the underlying structures of power and governance.

Critique/Caution: A ‘Zeitenwende’ doesn’t inherently guarantee a positive outcome. Turning points can lead to regression as easily as progress. The challenge is to channel the current discontent and awareness into constructive, democratic reforms rather than allowing it to be co-opted by demagoguery, further entrenchment of security apparatuses under new justifications, or a descent into deeper cynicism.

Concluding Thoughts:

Your analysis powerfully highlights that any effort to address the ‘deep state’ must grapple with its deep cultural roots and the narratives that sustain it. The call for transparency is fundamental, but as you implicitly acknowledge with the Yeats reference, true change requires more than just exposing or replacing individuals; it requires altering the underlying structures, incentives, and cultural presuppositions.

The path towards a system based on ‘indivisible security’ and genuine global solidarity is fraught with difficulty and will require sustained, multi-faceted efforts that go far beyond challenging a single nation’s deep state. It involves reimagining international relations, fostering global citizenship, and developing robust international institutions that command legitimacy and can manage power.

Your focus on the cultural dimension offers a crucial lever. If culture is where the necessity of deep state features is normalized, it is also where it can be questioned and, potentially, denormalized. This makes your dialogue and analysis not just an academic exercise, but a vital part of the very cultural work needed for change.

Thank you for sharing such a thought-provoking piece. It touches upon some of the most critical questions of our time regarding democracy, power, and the future of global order.”

My thoughts

In my follow-up article, I will react to several of the points Gemini develops. I’ll offer just one closing thought here.

I was pleasantly surprised by Google’s Gemini when it warned against “powerful tech corporations with their own opaque algorithmic governance and vast data empires, or decentralized networks with malign intent.” Will anyone at Google read this and ponder its significance? Thank you, Gemini, for your honesty.

This reminded me of the historical paradox I referred to and which most commentators fail to mention. Shouldn’t we think it ironic that Eisenhower was the one to warn against a trend that ballooned during his eight-year watch and which he apparently did nothing to constrain? The simplest explanation would be that Ike had in his team the two Dulles brothers: John Foster, his Secretary of State, and Allen, the director of the CIA. They were the architects and managers of the deep state. Their power may have exceeded that of the president.

And if it was true then, we can be certain that after the assassination of Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, it has been growing ever since.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue. 

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.