Regardless of the terminology, the supposed "deep state" is often a fill-in for one's own personal misunderstanding of institutional momentum and basic functions of the government.

"The Government" isn't really a single institution, but a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum guiding the direction they move in. It's critical to note that these institutions may have interests that harshly conflict with one another. Even the intelligence community, insular as it is, cannot be thought of as a monolith, but as various institutions with various priorities, some which conflict with the interests of other government institutions.

When the government does something we dislike politically, or does something we don't understand, it's "the deep state" or "the shadow government" which betrays a deep misunderstanding of what the government is. There's no central, shadowy cabal controlling the affairs of "the government" from behind the scenes, the various institutions that comprise the government maintain momentum and do what is in furtherance of their particular interests.

You’re projecting your own interpretation of “deep state” onto a straw man and then tearing it down.

J. Edgar Hoover was a perfect example of what people are talking about with the deep state. You can claim that’s just “institutional inertia”, but it’s still some unelected official with massive power wielding it in nefarious ways.

"Deep state" is used extremely often to mean something non-centralized, and in a sense, aligned with what you describe as "a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum". The reason it's a useful phrase is that much of that momentum was built in completely undemocratic and unaccountable ways, by groups that are illegitimately secretive and deceptive in their activities, and who feel free to use extreme means such as torture and terrorism.

It's a very imprecise term covering bureaucratic norms and blindspots, to unsanctioned domestic and international terrorism, so it's not really useful except as shorthand with ideological bedfellows, so-to-speak, and you're right that it's often used to mean "the government guys I don't like but am too lazy/ill-informed to describe". But OP mentioned Gladio -- I think that's context enough for this thread. Do some reading on the topic (beyond Wikipedia) if you haven't already, and you might get a sense of what this non-centralized deep state can do.

And I didn't make it clear, but I brought up the North et al "shadow government" as an example far on the small-scale end of the spectrum of meaning of "deep state/shadow government". It _was_ a centralized shadowy cabal doing a now-documented conspiracy. People argue about how much authority they "seized" and how much was delegated by Reagan (and how much capacity he had to delegate much of anything), but regardless, it was not democratic to illegal go around Congress. What I've described as the "deep state" is the more common usage, and it's on the "amorphous, non-centralized, competing institutions, largely free of any democratic accountability" end.

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is one of the few pieces of media that gets this right vis-a-vis conspiracy being conflated with the loosely coupled nature of government whose components are sometimes adversarial even in the face of external threat

> There's nothing wrong with the phrase "deep state". If you're concerned about associations with Trump (which I think you should not be), you can use a former Obama official's favored term, "the blob".

To me, 'deep state' implies an illegal conspiracy against democracy. 'The blob' is a large organization that is hard to change, which describes every such organization. Ask an executive at a Fortune 500 company about blobs. The executive branch has the added complication that the CEO has limited powers and doesn't make the rules, Congress does. At work, you follow the boss's instructions. In the executive branch, you follow the Constitution first, then the laws made by the American people via Congress (accumulated over centuries), then the President's instructions - including instructions of prior presidents that haven't been changed.

Maybe 'deep state' was used before Trump, but the meaning has changed.

If you can operate without democratic control and do things that would be illegal for anyone else to do, are you an "illegal conspiracy against democracy"? I think every intelligent US president since Eisenhower (which makes sense, as the relevant institutions largely came into being after WW2) has recognized that such a thing exists, with varying degrees of openness (Eisenhower), paranoia (Nixon), and glee (HW Bush).

> To me, 'deep state' implies an illegal conspiracy against democracy.

This is a very new, post-Trump/QAnon interpretation. The “deep state” has, for at least many decades prior, meant those aspects of government which persist from administration to administration, largely unaffected by those in power. E.g. the CIA keeps doing its thing regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in office.

Now in as much as these aspects of government are controlled by unelected officials who are willing to work against the elected representatives (think: J Edgar Hoover), that constitutes a shadow government.