I'm late to the party on this "deep state" thing.
That's a phrase that's been showing up quite a bit, but I wasn't paying attention.
And I'm wondering if it's--the phrase--is being used appropriately and accurately.
When I think "deep state," I think the bureaucracy and other institutions laying under the veneer of who appear to be the bosses but really aren't. In other words, the "deep state" is why Ronald Reagan and the second George Bush couldn't do all the good things they wanted to do, because they were leaders in name only, not in fact. (The same reason "reform" mayors never succeed in corrupt Democrat-machine controlled cities.)
They were obstructed by holdovers from their opponents.
There's much to be said for the spoils system, where the winner fires all the loser's people.
Unlike the primitives, I'm aware the blade cuts two ways; the spoils system would hurt Republicans just as much as it'd hurt Democrats. But I think it's worth a try, the president having the right to pick everybody, from his cabinet and his right-hand man to the cleaning-woman who scrubs the marble floors of the Capitol building.