Elections come and go, the interests of the state remain the same regardless of whom is sat on the throne.
However there are differences of opinion on the interests of the state, do you mean citizens or those that are controlling and manipulating the elected representatives? These latter folk are known as the 'deep state' although on HN the correct terminology is the 'military industrial complex'. Under normal circumstances the deep pockets of the 'deep state' back both sides of the house with contributions to both the liberal and conservative sides. No matter who gets in they have people in their pocket to further their interests and project their interests as the national interest.
The rest of the world determines who the outside enemy is supposed to be. A resurgent Russia is the current enemy, although first among many with China, axis of evil states Iran and North Korea also at the top of this very long list. In reality nobody wants to be an enemy, the enemy has to be imagined and incited into being the enemy.
With the last election no matter who won the interests of the deep state had put in the groundwork to be able to blame Russia for meddling in the result. The candidate and political party were immaterial, whatever the outcome there would be proof of Russian interference. Had the world situation been different then there would have been proof in this post truth age that China, Iran, North Korea, you name it had been meddling.
Domestically this works well as much squabbling goes on at a belief rather than a fact-based level as to whether or not the Russians did interfere. It all depends whom you get your news from. It is like a wedge strategy all over again.
The wedge strategy was used to get people talking about whether 'Creationism' should be taught in schools, meanwhile vast cuts to science funding were made and nobody talked about that because they had such strong opinions of freedom as applied to schools and 'Creationism'.
"Deep State" and "Military Industrial Complex" are two different but related things.
The former are unelected diplomatic, intelligence, and military government employees who consider themselves the true bearers of the power of the republic and consider it their duty to manipulate elected officials and the general public to carry out their long-term plans for the world order.
The latter is the cycle of military lobbying, funding, and spending of US taxpayer money, chasing military supremacy against threats real and imagined.
Of course the two are related in that the deep state and military industrial complex are in communication about what kind of weapons to build. But I don't agree that it is two names for the same thing.
However there are differences of opinion on the interests of the state, do you mean citizens or those that are controlling and manipulating the elected representatives? These latter folk are known as the 'deep state' although on HN the correct terminology is the 'military industrial complex'. Under normal circumstances the deep pockets of the 'deep state' back both sides of the house with contributions to both the liberal and conservative sides. No matter who gets in they have people in their pocket to further their interests and project their interests as the national interest.
The rest of the world determines who the outside enemy is supposed to be. A resurgent Russia is the current enemy, although first among many with China, axis of evil states Iran and North Korea also at the top of this very long list. In reality nobody wants to be an enemy, the enemy has to be imagined and incited into being the enemy.
With the last election no matter who won the interests of the deep state had put in the groundwork to be able to blame Russia for meddling in the result. The candidate and political party were immaterial, whatever the outcome there would be proof of Russian interference. Had the world situation been different then there would have been proof in this post truth age that China, Iran, North Korea, you name it had been meddling.
Domestically this works well as much squabbling goes on at a belief rather than a fact-based level as to whether or not the Russians did interfere. It all depends whom you get your news from. It is like a wedge strategy all over again.
The wedge strategy was used to get people talking about whether 'Creationism' should be taught in schools, meanwhile vast cuts to science funding were made and nobody talked about that because they had such strong opinions of freedom as applied to schools and 'Creationism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy