Writes Mike Holmes:

Lew,

Since you have run a number of articles on the topic of the Deep State on LRC, if you haven’t already done so in the past, you and Tom might want to comment on the matter of these GOP and Dem candidates and the Deep State.

Namely, which of them would be more and less subject to the command and control of Deep State institutions and managers (e.g. CIA, DoD, NSA, Fed, Wall St. bankers, defense contractors, etc.)?

I think the Deep State is a convenient means to discuss what in the old fashioned way was deemed “ruling class.” The respective candidates should be ranked on that dimension. Not merely what they say about things, but their probable behavior in office if elected.

For what it’s worth, my rankings:

DEMs

Hillary #1  no explanation needed

Sanders #2  he might be “actively” opposed by the DS, even in the JFK manner, if elected. Especially if he acted to threaten the economic interests in a real way or showed resistance to imperial warmongering.

GOP

Rubio  # 1  clearly a tool, a role he has eagerly sought; the ideal DS president

Cruz   # 2  ties to Goldman Sachs and elite legal establishment, ruthless opportunist. Crazed warmonger. Slightly more independent than Rubio. But smarter.

Kasich # 3 clearly comfortable with DS values and objectives, though always in the past a minor player

Carson # 4  a true wild card, due to his many half-baked views of reality and the world; could lapse into the default control of the DS via being way out of his depth in the unlikely event of being elected

Trump # 5 a real possibility of a DS destabilizer, since he appears to lack any direct ties to DS operators or institutions (perhaps need further research on this); Trump is used to getting his way and due to wealth and fairly narrow economic business objectives involving governments (mainly local and state) would seem to be immune from DS influence in the usual manner (money, personal security, intimidation via propaganda attacks, etc.). Could be more willing to question establishment policy assumptions due to his claim to be a national revitalizer with many “new ideas” thus far left vague. Seems to challenge the neocon world view and could be more of a foreign policy “realist” (i.e. less imperialist).  Might also face the JFK problem.

Anyway, perhaps an interesting topic to explore on a future podcast.