It makes sense to me that because people with similar interests, degrees of wealth and world views will act in an aligned way, there is no need for a conscious conspiracy to exist for it to appear that there is. There appears to be a conspiracy when there is mainly a cohesion of values, interests, and goals among people of similar backgrounds and wealth. Since people in the 'deep leadership' stratum of society also have a lot of corporate, institutional and governmental clout, naturally their perspectives, values and interests are going to show up in the decisions made by the governing bodies of corporations, institutions and government. This overall picture doesn't preclude sub-sets of the 'deep leadership' having highly intentional programs for achieving what I'll call retrogressive (or authoritarian) ends. For example, Tom DeLay (more a demagogue than a 'deep leader') and his pals were highly intentional in their makeover of Congressional districting in Texas.
Add to that a little cronyism, and a little bit of overlap and connections between the groups, and you get a lot of back-channel communication that can help to synchronize their separate efforts. That doesn't require conspiracy; just communication that's not completely open.

Remember that it doesn't take a lot of people to make a really big mess of things. How many did it take to set the corporate culture at Enron? Or to destroy FEMA?