I feel like the discussion around the deep state is on one side an insistence that it exists and is unduly exerting its will against the elected representative(s) of the electorate, on the other side it's mostly a denial of the deep state's existence.

The latter argument seems tactically useful but fundamentally flawed. Maybe "Deep State" is too ominous of a name making an argument supporting some form of it an uphill battle. Though, with that said, I am having a tough time seeing the existence of a deep state, that is a large contingent of appointed (and appointed by proxy via hirings by appointees) government employees who's tenures overlap elections, as an inherently bad thing.

What am I missing?