The US is essentially ruled by the deep-state. Presidents are just figureheads.
All states are ruled by the "deep state". That's the nature of bureaucracy and institutional dynamics.
The US is presently an elected monarchy where the president represents the unity of the states that are still governed by the fractious system from early post-Revolutionary era. This is why the president alone has relatively little power despite superficially having enormous influence. It's a flawed system that for example existed in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and brought about the collapse of the kingdom in late 18th century because it was a system that did not limit the informal economic and political power of the oligarchy and organised political factions. The "king" exists so that the oligarchs can use the state to their aims but the state can't be too centralised or it becomes a threat to the oligarchy.
Here are some quotes. Noam Chomsky: "The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats."
Chomsky is a waste of time. He's a stupid man's idea of a political philosopher.
The US isn't a one-party system. It's two countries competing for power within one political system.
Since its inception the US was an artificial amalgam of two fundamentally opposed cultures - Southern landowners and Northern farmers. South resembled serfdom-based absolute monarchies and oligarchies of Eastern Europe. North resembled the rent-based centralising states of Western Europe.
South was more populous and richer than North throughout the colonial era until approx. 1810, however already in 1790 the free population in theSouth fell below free population in the North. The ongoing immigration to the newly established US and the land distribution policies of North and South only ensured that this dynamic would continue.
table may include minor discrepancies
| free population North/Free states | total population South/Slave states | free population South/Slave states | slave population South/Slave states |
| 1790 | 1.26m | 2.39m | 1.22m | 0.65m |
| 1800 | 2.27m | 2.73m | 1.69m | 0.84m |
| 1810 | 3.49m | 3.22m | 2.14m | 1.1m |
| 1820 | 4.85m | 4.24m | 2.77m | 1.49m |
| 1830 | 6.98m | 5.57m | 3.64m | 1.97m |
| 1840 | 9.65m | 7.02m | 4.66m | 2.39m |
| 1850 | 13.34m | 9.31m | 6.21m | 3.15m |
| 1860 | 18.62m | 11.86m | 8.00m | 3.93m |
Now if you remember that three fifths clause guarantees that 5 slaves are counted as 3 free men for the purpose of Congressional representation and Electoral college you should easily see why Secession
really happened and why it was the North that threatened secession in 1815.
Southern states were built on an unstable foundation of greatly unequal land distribution and control of slave labour by the largest landowners. That gave the Southern elites capital to capture the less democratic governments of the states as well as their electoral methods in the federal government. For example the first seceding state South Carolina had no direct elections to federal level at all. Many states also had populations of slaves similar to free populations as slave populations were boosted to keep labour pool (and political influence). In 1850 Virginia had 667k free and 452k slave, Georgia - 524k free and 381k slave, North Carolina - 580k free and 288k slave, South Carolina - 283k free and 384k slave (!), Alabama - 428k free and 342k slave, Mississipi - 296k free and 310k slave (!), Louisiana - 273k free and 245k slave.
As long as South controlled the federal government the US served their purposes. Jackson hijacked the democratic rhetoric which kept the populist vote with the Southern elites - largely mirroring how conservative populism today serves the Republican oligarchy.
Due to demographic shift North managed to gain control of the federal government - first by winning presidential elections in 1840 (Whig-Harrison) with a Whig majority in Congress (but just one 2year term 1841-1843, 1843-45 HoR went Democrat and Senate stayed Whig) and 1850 (Whig-Taylor) but without Congress. Democrats/South fought back introducing vote splitters but by 1858 the newly formed Republican party of ex-Whigs won HoR and in 1860 took the entire federal government with Lincoln.
Another important factor was source of federal budget. Without a central bank and direct taxation the government relied on tariffs which were mostly paid by richer Southern states and consumed by poorer Northern states. However a disproportionate burden fell on the relatively poorer white working class in the South, while Southern elites simply lost profits.
Southern elites successfully convinced the masses that North would free the slaves and force the whites to share land and live together and that secured support for Secession which at the time was viewed very differently than it would be today. Back then there was no "American nation" and people's patriotic sentiment was mostly linked to their home state.
Once the Secession happened war was inevitable. Not only had the Union lost a major source of revenue but
geopolitics made it inevitable. Being placed between British Canada and British-friendly South, while itself a competing industrialising economy would be threatened and limited in access to resources of the continent.
After the Secession War Union sought to reintegrate the states into the Union without reforming the systems of the states, as it didn't view - much like North/Democrats viewing South/Republicans of today - the underlying mental maps and cultural differences as fundamental. To the North - which was more influenced by progressive Pietist Protestants - Southerners were simply wrong/sinful (bigoted!) and had to change and since Republicans controlled the government they would do it in time.
Except the system in place which was not changed to preserve control of territory and government ensured that Republicans would never have sufficient control to force change of lifestyle in the South, also because conflict between whites and blacks secured votes for the party.
And that meant that Northern establishment which was in control of the country until late 20th century would use the South as a battleground for their race war to gain votes.
This effectively meant that the Secession War became very much an actual Civil War that lasts to this day and is fought out during elections. This is why Democrats and Republicans hate each other despite both parties being largely moderate platforms that only in recent years became driven by radical ideological narratives.
Right now it seems like split between Republicans and Democrats is ideological because highly centralised media networks shape an uniform narrative but the same couldn't be said in the 1980s when the moderate "exhausted majority" of today (70% vs 30% of radicals) had more free expression and greater influence over public debate.
And yet, the Democrats and Republicans kept fighting even back then. Why? The history of the country and the false identity that the government imposed on the people are the answer. Americans were raised to think they're one nation and act like two nations. What they are in reality is a huge mess.
Ok, that's enough.
