The Neo-Marxist infiltration of American institutions has been a slow but deliberate process. Among the most powerful institutions targeted in this “long march” has been the government itself—not just elected positions, but more strategically, the bureaucracy: the unelected and largely unaccountable administrative state. This essay will explore how Neo-Marxist ideas have permeated the government and its bureaucracy, transforming it from a servant of the people into a mechanism for ideological enforcement, political suppression, and the centralization of control.
Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist theoretician, recognized that the key to revolutionary change in the West was not violent overthrow, but cultural infiltration—what came to be known as the long march through the institutions. Rudi Dutschke would later coin that phrase, urging leftist activists to infiltrate cultural and civic institutions to bring about Marxist change incrementally.
While education, media, and the arts were obvious early targets, the administrative machinery of government presented an even more potent prize. Control over regulation, rulemaking, and enforcement offered the power to reshape society from the inside out—regardless of election outcomes. Neo-Marxists realized that permanent bureaucratic control could sideline constitutional checks and democratic input, replacing them with top-down directives aligned with progressive ideology.
Core Concepts and Definitions
Rule by Experts (Technocracy):
Governance is executed not by elected legislators but by supposedly neutral, credentialed experts in specialized agencies. These “experts” often share a similar worldview and wield immense regulatory power without democratic accountability.
Deep State:
A colloquial term for entrenched, ideologically unified bureaucracies and intelligence agencies that act independently of, or even in defiance of, elected political leaders. These entities often operate in secrecy, shaping policy, leaking information, and obstructing reforms that challenge their power.
Administrative State:
The term used to describe the rise of executive agencies that make rules, enforce them, and even adjudicate them, thereby consolidating legislative, executive, and judicial powers in unelected bodies. This structure erodes constitutional separation of powers.
Purpose: Institutionalize Ideology, Suppress Opposition, Centralize Control
Neo-Marxists seek to harness the vast machinery of the administrative state to entrench their worldview in law and policy. Government agencies, originally created to serve the public good, are increasingly tools of social engineering.
1. Institutionalize Ideology:
Policies are embedded into administrative codes through agency rulemaking. For example, the Department of Education ties funding to compliance with critical race theory or “equity” mandates. Federal agencies redefine terms like “sex” and “discrimination” to advance gender ideology, bypassing Congress altogether.
2. Suppress Opposition:
Government power is leveraged to intimidate or silence dissent. The IRS scandal under Lois Lerner, where conservative nonprofits were deliberately denied tax-exempt status, was a brazen display of bureaucratic suppression. The Department of Justice and FBI have also faced criticism for targeting parents at school board meetings or political opponents under the guise of “domestic extremism.”
3. Centralize Control:
Neo-Marxists view decentralized governance as a threat. Local control of education, policing, or health policy is gradually eroded through federal grants, mandates, and emergency declarations. Federal agencies now regulate everything from school discipline policies to speech on college campuses under the logic of enforcing “civil rights.”
Tactics
Executive Orders and Administrative Rulemaking:
When Congress is gridlocked or opposed, presidents from the progressive left increasingly use executive orders to bypass the legislative process. These orders empower federal agencies to write rules that effectively have the force of law. Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was a clear example of unilateral policy creation. Under Biden, executive orders have mandated “equity audits” across agencies, compelling every department to align with DEI goals.
Regulatory Pressure on Businesses and Speech:
The administrative state wields coercive power through regulation. Environmental mandates, workplace diversity quotas, or speech codes attached to government contracts all function to shape behavior without passing a single law. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for example, has pressured corporations to disclose and align with ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) goals—a major plank of the Neo-Marxist environmentalist agenda.
Federal Funding Tied to Ideological Compliance:
Billions of dollars in federal funding come with strings attached. School systems, universities, hospitals, and even local police must submit to ideological criteria to receive funds. This includes accepting gender identity policies, implicit bias training, and anti-racism curricula. The Department of Agriculture recently required recipients of school lunch programs to enforce LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination rules—even if doing so contradicted parental rights or religious convictions.
Key Figures
Cass Sunstein – As Obama’s regulatory czar, Sunstein advanced the idea of “nudging” public behavior through subtle regulatory manipulation. Though not explicitly Marxist, his model of paternalistic technocracy aligns with the Neo-Marxist goal of reshaping citizen behavior without open democratic debate.
Lois Lerner – Director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Unit during the Obama administration. She oversaw the targeting of conservative and Tea Party-affiliated groups, delaying or denying their tax-exempt status. Her actions revealed how bureaucratic control could be weaponized against political enemies.
DEI Officers (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) – Every federal agency now has entire teams devoted to DEI compliance. These officers enforce ideological orthodoxy in hiring, policy-making, and public engagement, ensuring that agencies not only follow but evangelize progressive ideology.
Timeline of Bureaucratic Capture
1930s – The New Deal:
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression created massive new federal agencies (e.g., Social Security Administration, SEC). The justification was economic crisis, but the effect was a permanent shift toward centralized planning.
1960s – The Great Society:
Lyndon Johnson’s programs massively expanded the welfare state and federal control over education, housing, and healthcare. Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and HUD entrenched federal bureaucracies in everyday life.
1970s–1990s – Environmental and Civil Rights Expansion:
New agencies like the EPA, and expansions in civil rights enforcement, gave bureaucracies power to regulate everything from smokestacks to hiring practices. Courts increasingly deferred to agency rulemaking.
2000s–2020s – The Rise of the Deep State:
Under both Democrat and Republican presidents, the federal bureaucracy grew further in size and scope. Intelligence agencies increasingly interfered in domestic affairs. The FBI and DOJ pursued policies that appeared politically motivated, including involvement in social media censorship, suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and selective enforcement against ideological opponents.
2020–2024 – Weaponization of Bureaucracy:
COVID-19 became a justification for bureaucratic overreach. Agencies like the CDC and OSHA issued sweeping mandates on masks, vaccines, and employment. The Department of Homeland Security even attempted to launch a “Disinformation Governance Board,” a chilling Orwellian step. DEI, ESG, and CRT became embedded in federal hiring and grant-making.
Restoring Constitutional Balance
The long march through government and bureaucracy has succeeded in building a permanent ideological infrastructure that is resistant to elections, resistant to oversight, and increasingly hostile to constitutional principles. Bureaucrats, not legislators, now make many of the rules that shape American life, and their worldview often reflects a progressive, technocratic, and secular ideology.
For Christians and conservatives committed to the constitutional order, the path forward must include:
- Legislative efforts to rein in executive agencies.
- Congressional sunset clauses on agency rulemaking authority.
- Legal challenges to ideological mandates that violate religious liberty and free speech.
- The appointment of leaders who are committed not just to managing the bureaucracy, but to dismantling its ideological grip.
The Founders never envisioned a permanent ruling class of unelected experts. They feared concentrated power and believed liberty was preserved through checks and balances. The Neo-Marxist long march seeks to dissolve those boundaries. It is time for a counter-march—one that restores accountability, transparency, and constitutional authority to government.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
I think the content is worthwhile, but it may contain opinions or language I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.