The rise of the American deep state

K.E. Koktysh; V.M. Sergeev

doi:10.17976/jpps/2025.03.06

The rise of the American deep state

Koktysh K.E.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, kirill.koktysh@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250721 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6555-0391 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5548-2021

Sergeev V.M.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, victor04076831@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 1447 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAE-9160-2020

Article received: 2024.03.18 19:34. Accepted: 2025.01.22 19:34

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.03.06
EDN: WOCKOT

Rubric: Theory and methodology of political studies

For citation:

Koktysh K.E., Sergeev V.M. The rise of the American deep state. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.06. EDN: WOCKOT (In Russ.)

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the process of formation of the deep state in the United States. “Deep state” was the only possible managerial know-how of Britain– the English aristocracy, that after the church reform of Henry VIII lost the institutional capability to influence the decisions the government made, created its own shadow networks of state managers, thus determining how these decisions will be executed. So, predictably, the “deep state” technology became the basic tool for managing North American colonies. In this context, the American Independence War was nothing else but a new edition of the Cromwellian revolution, i.e. the revolt of the “management network” against the aristocratic superstructure. This largely explains the specifics of the construction of the system of “checks and balances” by the American founding fathers. For instance, their adoption of the Roman Republic as a model was largely dictated by the fact that in the Roman case the aristocracy was created “from scratch”. In many ways, the Roman institutional structure was also reproduced, with the difference that the imperative of military expansion in the American case was replaced by the imperative of an economic one. As in Rome, the Senate became the main owner of power in the United States, the consul’s figure that turned into the president was assigned the same role of a “hired political manager”, and the pragmatics of the institutional system was conceived as excluding the possibility of challenging the central position of the Senate both from the executive branch and from society. Thus, Madison considered the main advantage of the American system to be “the complete exclusion of the people, who are represented by the national assembly, from participating in governing in America.” Puritanism became the ideological basis of the American system, assuming individual enrichment as the main reason for the existence of the political system, and financial technologies became the basic managerial tool. This structure remained “dormant” until the Civil War between the North and the South, and began to unfold after the victory of the North. The authors consider the stages of the expansion of the American deep state, during which it consistently privatized property, public policy, the media sphere, the sphere of education, and during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson went beyond America. Considering the features of the American deep state in comparison with the British one, the authors came to the conclusion that in the American case there is no deterrent factor of conservatism to protect the political system from shocks.

Keywords

deep state, USA, networks of influence, institutional design, Puritanism, minorities, financial managerial technologies.

References

Axelrod, R. (Ed.) (1976). Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books; Perseus Books Group.

Bonham, G.M. (1993). Cognitive mapping as a technique for supporting international negotiation. Theory and Decision, 34(3), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075192

Bonham, G.M., & Shapiro, M.J. (Eds.). (1977). Thought and action in foreign policy. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

Bonham, G.M., Jönsson, C., Persson, S., & Shapiro, M.J. (1987). Cognition and international negotiation: the historical recovery of discursive space. Cooperation and Conflict XXII, 22(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/001083678702200101

Gelfand, L.B. (1963). The inquiry; American preparations for peace, 1917-1919. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Handlin, О. (1959). Boston’s immigrants. 1790-1880: a study in acculturation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lovelock, J. (2019). Novacene: the coming age of hyperintelligence. London: Allen Lane.

Nye, J.S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Nye, J.S., Jr. (2020). Do morals matter? Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to Trump. New York: Oxford University Press.

Olson, D.R. (2022). Making sense: what it means to understand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pizzuti, M. (2022). Deep state. I segreti dell’élite finanziaria e delle multinazionali che controllano i governi. Indagine non autorizzata sui poteri economici che da secoli decidono i destini del mondo. Vicenza: Edizioni Il Punto d’Incontro.

Scott, P.D. (2015). The American deep state. Big money, big oil, and the struggle for U.S. democracy. London: Rowman & Litlefield Publishers.

Sloss, D.L. (2022). Introduction: preserving a rules-based international order. In: Sloss, D.L. (Ed.), Is the International Legal Order Unraveling? (pp. 1-34). New York: Oxford Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197652800.003.0001

Dubova, L.L., & Chernyavskii, G.I. (2014). Klan Kennedi [The Kennedy clan]. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya Publishing House. (In Russ.)

The Federalist Papers. (1994). (Russ. ed.: Federalist: Politicheskie ehsse Aleksandra Gamil’tona, Dzheimsa Mehdisona i Dzhona Dzheya. Moscow: Progress; Litera).

Gershov, Z.M. (1983). Woodrow Wilson. Moscow: Mysl’. (In Russ.)

Grigor’ev, O. (2014). Ehpokha rosta. Lektsii po neokonomike. Rastsvet i upadok mirovoi ehkonomicheskoi sistemy [The age of growth. Lectures on neoconomics. The rise and fall of the world economic system]. Moscow: Kar’era Press. (In Russ.)

Heideking, J. (Ed.) (1997). Die americanischen Präsidenten. 41 historische Portraits von George Washington bis Bill Clinton. (Russ. ed.: Heideking, J. (Ed.) Amerikanskie prezidenty: 41 istoricheskii portret ot Dzhordzha Vashingtona do Billa Klintona. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix).

Hobbes, T. (2001). Elementa philosophica de cive. (Russ. ed.: Hobbes, T. Filosofskie osnovaniya ucheniya o grazhdanine. Minsk: Kharvest; Moscow: AST).

Jefferson, T. (1990). Autobiography of Thomas Jeffeson 1943-1790. Notes on the State of Virginia. (Russ. ed.: Jefferson, T. Avtobiografiya. Zametki o shtate Virginiya. Leningrad: Nauka).

Koktysh, K.E. (2016). The ontology of rational (II). Politeia, 3, 6-30. https://doi.org/10.30570/207 8-5089-2016-82-3 -6-30. (In Russ.)

Koktysh, K.E. (2017). The ontology of rational (IV). Politeia, 1, 46-71. https://doi.org/10.30570/207 8-5089-2017-84-1 -4 6-71 . (In Russ.)

Koktysh, K.E. (2021). Diskurs ratsionalizma, svobody i demokratii [The discourse of rationalism, freedom and democracy]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

Koktysh, K.E. (2022). The formation of the cognitive code of modernity. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 94-113. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.06.08 . (In Russ.)

Koktysh, K.E., & Sergeev, V.M. (2024). The birth of the deep state. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 134-148. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.01.10. (In Russ.)

Lakoff, G. (2004). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. (Russ ed.: Lakoff, G. Zhenshchiny, ogon’ i opasnye veshchi: Chto kategorii yazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury. Moscow: LRS Publishing House).

Lundberg, F. (1948). America’s 60 families. (Russ. ed.: Lundberg, F. 60 semeistv Ameriki. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House (Soviet Union)).

McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding media: the extensions of man. (Russ. ed.: McLuhan. Ponimanie Media: Vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole Publishing House).

Mommsen, Th. (2002). Römische Geschichte. (Russ. ed.: Mommsen Th. Istoriya rimskikh imperatorov. St. Petersburg: Uwenta Publisher).

Oslington, P. (2015). God and the market: “invisible hand” of Adam Smith. Christian Reading, 1, 181-206. (In Russ.)

Rusakov, N.P. (1969). Iz istorii sitsiliiskoi mafii [From the history of the Sicilian Mafia]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Sergeev, V.M., & Alekseenkova, E.S. (Eds.). (2010). BRIK – politicheskaya real’nost’ postkrizisnogo mira? Novye vozmozhnosti dlya Rossii. Analiticheskii doklad [BRIC – a political reality of the post-crisis world? New opportunities for Russia. Analytical report]. Moscow: Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

Sergeev, V.M., & Alekseenkova, E.S. (Eds.). (2011). The new dimension of the world politics: a view from the United States. Analytical Reports of the Institute for International Studies, 6(30). MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

Yakovlev, N. (1994). Poslanie v budushchee [A message to the future]. In Federalist: Politicheskie ehsse Aleksandra Gamil’tona, Dzheimsa Mehdisona i Dzhona Dzheya [Federalist: Political Essays of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay] (pp. 5-27). Moscow: Progress; Litera. (In Russ.)

Content No. 3, 2025