Why is The New York Times Still Calling the Deep State a Conspiracy Theory?
A reader asked: “To what extent did The Times consider the effect that publication of the piece would have in bolstering conspiracy theories about the ‘deep state’ or QAnon, etc.?”
Dao’s response: “We did not take that into consideration. It is difficult to ever know what reportage might feed into a conspiracy theory. But the essay included a passage that indicates the author suspected the piece might be viewed as part of a ‘deep state’ theory: ‘This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.’”
We find this very confusing. You can call it the deep state, the permanent bureaucracy, the “steady state,” whatever you want, it all comes down to the same thing: There is a burrowed-in, established administrative bureaucracy in the United States (aided to one degree or another by the lobbying firms and think-tanks that populate Washington as well as the ideological groupthink inside the Pentagon) that does not change very much from presidency to presidency. This isn’t a “conspiracy theory,” this is a fact.