Context has so much to do with understanding, the two are never found too far apart.
Cultural climates can give rise to reactionary ideas, sparking a different cultural climate.
Looking at the terms “deist” and “deism”, the time when these word's current definition was derived shouldn't come as a surprise.
In the context of cultural discontent with how the religious hierarchy in Europe directed political and social discourse, and the subsequent bloodshed between the church and the rebellion of the protestants, we see the rise of a belief in God without the notion of things which cannot be rationally explained.
Much how a child who was raised with too many rules, the child (now an adult) desires not to forward the same frustrations onto their children.
This intention beginning noble enough, the method soon begins to wander away from the noble intention, much the same as the prior order that was just removed had wandered away.
Among certain circles of 18th century educated hierarchy, in a desire to redefine oneself while resolving exoteric conflicts of ideological differences, new methods were formulated and 'old' manners were denied.
The new methods brought what seemed to be greater freedoms in reaching for higher spiritual plateaus, while denying the 'old' manners which brought the allowance to doubt and bring into question every single thing that had been established.
A mainstream notion in deism is the rejection of things which cannot be logically or naturally explained, like miracles.
The logical mind, in reaching the conclusion that a miracle cannot be rationalized rejects its notion and the writings expressing such notions.
It has been my personal experience that what one doesn't believe to be possible, one will consider as impossible, improbable and eventually untrue... and one's reality will thus reflect this perception.
This is the stagnant lurch that religion becomes, whilst the righteous who desire not to be restrained by doubt or by God's boundless nature continues to seek the truth and grows accordingly.
The deist-minded individual, according to the popular definition, sees mankind on their own; creation having being set in motion and simply left alone by God.
With this mindset, it is easy to see how faithlessness and doubt can be a starting point for people in establishing government, policy, societal norms and in defining what is right from what is wrong.
Looking at the argument that a particular country was established on the Rock that calls Yeshua Lord and Christ (that which deism would categorically deny according by definition), and seeing the historical reality that such a confession of faith was not to be publicly legitimized government, one sees that argument as a poor one.
This is not to say that any place, people or purpose is vacant of God's blessing or not carrying within it His anointing, but it does clarify that the things unseen, denied by so-called intellectuals while still believed by those who have seen and heard, is simply His story (history) repeating... and trust in men and their machinations is an empty place to put one's trust.