Steve Bannon: A Man From Another Time (But Not The Time You Might Think)

-by Valerius

Introduction

Steve Bannon came out of his hole last week at CPAC, and, not unlike as Punxsutawny Phil often does, he predicted a long winter. The difference is, the winter he is predicting is for America, if not, in his mind, for all of western civilization. The end of America a nation. As a concept. As a nation of laws. As one nation, under God, indivisible. And certainly as a land of liberty and justice for all. After these most recent remarks, there can be little doubt of the depth of his convictions to fundamentally change our republic. Moreover, he also makes it clear that if you aren’t with him, you are against him.

First, some background. Over the last almost year, a significant amount of opposition research was conducted on Rep. Dave Brat, who represents the VA-7th district, in support of the candidacy of Eileen Bedell (who’s running again in 2018, by the way-- pay attention to her!). In what is by now a well-known tale, in 2014, Brat defeated then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary, bolstered by Tea Party support and the campaign managing of none-other-than Steve Bannon. Many of the themes used by the President in his campaign and now Presidency had their test run, if you will, in Virginia two years prior-- particularly the dangers of “radical Islamic terrorism” (their phrase, not mine, but I will use herein) and immigration. And those themes are working, right according to plan.

Please note, most of this article is to explicate Bannon’s worldview, to try to understand the man whom none of us elected but is clearly now, as Karl Rove was often described, the President's brain. I figured if I’m going to go through all this, I might as well share it in the hopes it might help someone else. Now, back to the present day...

CPAC, 2017

Bannon spent CPAC on familiar themes. To summarize: first, Bannon continued the offensive on the media, saying that the attacks on the press are going to keep coming every day, that the media is a corporatist cabal supporting elites, and that it is therefore the true enemy of the state. This is nothing but a page from Lenin’s playbook, whose attacks on the press began immediately upon coming to power. These attacks accomplish at least three important things:

1- They diminish, by ignoring, an already weakened opposing party by putting a non-political actor as the primary antagonist to the President and his congressional sycophants. The press, while mighty in many ways, has no actual political power;

2- They make even more of the discussion about non-substantive issues, even though those substantive issues continue moving forward-- or continue to be stalled without as much coverage, therefore allowing them fade away; and,

3- They push the administration toward being the most, if not only, trusted source of information, which means they can, do and will feed the public lie after lie after lie without check, and particularly through the President’s Twitter account. If you don’t already, you really should follow it for a few days. It’s pretty special, and, just to put it perspective, in time it will be looked upon alongside Jefferson and Lincoln’s letters, for example.

Current polling data, however, shows a majority of Americans don’t trust such information from the administration and do, in fact, trust the media. In time, however, with the promised constant pushing — and especially if the White House continues on the path it started on this past week by excluding certain members of the media from briefings-- that level of trust, and certainly attention paid can, and almost inevitably will, change. To paraphrase from Joseph Goebbels, a lie repeated a thousand times is still a lie, but it becomes an orthodoxy nonetheless. When you tell the lies, constantly, from the loudest microphone in the world, it will inevitably bolster those who want to believe them and wear out those who don’t.

Second, during his comments, Bannon openly shares one of his goals-- or, “the President’s goals,” as he so quaintly puts it-- and this is, plainly, to destroy almost all the executive agencies, or as he calls it, “the administrative state.” [For the record, a good rule of thumb for this administration is that if an agency is led by a present or retired military officer then it is likely not going to be destroyed.] Bannon shamelessly admits that the horrific appointees to head each executive agency were chosen specifically with the goal of the agencies’ destruction in mind. It’s a kind of slow and tortuous first-degree murder of executive agencies, if you will, planned with malice aforethought. And everything, he intimates, is going according to plan.

As shown in this New York Times article and associated video clip related to Bannon’s comments, and as I have observed from other sources, he is a decent speaker-- calm, rationale sounding, collected-- and he is good at endearing himself to his audience as he hits populist themes that resonate. He almost always follows the same patterns and talking points, which are not unlike this below:

I’m here to tell you, that [depending on the audience, these are interchangeable or can be combined] the press, Islam, the people on the left and/or liberalism as a philosophy are bad. Now, I really don’t have much more to say than that, except a couple show-off type references to a philosopher or historic event that you won’t know but makes you think I’m smarter than you. Lastly, you all in the audience listening are good people, and you are the important foot soldiers who are going to do my bidding to make this happen. Now let’s go out there and destroy things!

Much of the other substance is disjointed as he jumps, freely, from thought to thought, not unlike the President (although not as stupidly), but he always returns to those points.

[I haven’t found any examples of him speaking to anything but a friendly audience, nor do I think I’ve ever seen him take a challenging question. If you have, please share.]

Economic Nationalism

History, both ancient and modern, is an important part of Bannon’s peculiar worldview, and informs his philosophy of “economic nationalism.” As to what that means, he sees protectionist economic policies as important to the nation’s well-being, and that regulations and free trade agreements that he feels limit competitiveness and profit are anathema to our national interest. Therefore, they all must be destroyed. On its face, this is not a foreign concept as shown throughout history, but there is more lurking just below the surface.

Bannon’s attempt to make his brand of nationalism strictly focused on economics and not greater issues of sovereignty such as national security, is a spurious distinction. Calling it “economic” nationalism, however, makes it more palatable for the masses. With threats behind every corner, however, it seems more likely that this version of nationalism will also deal with issues far greater than the economy. Otherwise wouldn’t the administration seek to ban persons from seven Muslim countries-- an executive order of which he was a primary author-- based on arguments for which they may be able to make a more compelling argument that courts are less likely to scrutinize, such as jobs, instead of safety? That, however, has not been the case; his nationalism would seem to be driven by more than economics.

It is as if Bannon, as a voracious reader, has yet to study the Enlightenment. During a 2014 meeting of the Institute for Human Dignity in Rome, where he participated via Skype, he referenced reverentially two legendary battles between Christian and Muslim forces on European soil-- in 732 A.D. in Tours and 1529 A.D. in Vienna. In these battles-- both before the Enlightenment-- the West was triumphant, repelling the invading Muslim armies. He then continues to say that we are, today, in a “war of immense proportions,” and once again, it is against Islam. To be fair, he doesn’t specifically describe today’s conflict as being against all Muslims, only radical Islamic terrorists, but given the historical context in which he places the current conflict, that distinction seems hollow, at best.

It is telling to me that, when speaking of our “forefathers,” I have never heard or seen him refer to our founding fathers. Never Jefferson. Never Washington or Adams or Madison or Monroe or Hamilton or Henry or Franklin or Paine or Otis. It’s always before them, to the time when European nation-states warred with each other. To him, our forefathers were from those battles at Tours and Vienna:

“[T]hey [meaning “our forefathers”] were able to defeat it [meaning Islam], and they we able to bequeath to us a church and a culture that is really the flower of mankind.”

One can almost see Bannon in armor, riding his stallion, raising his sword to King and country while ordering others into battle to be slaughtered. Picture Brat, Conway, Spicer, Spencer and Miller willingly charging into the enemies’ ranks while he remains safely behind.

The greater point, however, is that he doesn’t appear to countenance the Lockean/Jeffersonian ideal that informs the Declaration of Independence and forms the core of what it means to be an American:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]

Instead, it is that Christianity and the west are ”the flower of mankind,” the most beautiful thing in all history, and all those who are not are lesser and have been, and are being, and should be vanquished. This perceived superiority is what drives his ideas of nationalism, not his disingenuous idea of economic protectionism. He does not believe in the idea of the equality of all people encompassed in our founding documents, a goal toward which America has marched, if not haltingly, since its inception.

He believes instead in feudal nation-states which can never be secure, for we are “us,” and they are “them.” The only way to protect from the marauding hordes coming over the horizon is to close the gate and remove or attack anyone suspicious.

In short, he does not hold true American values in his heart, values that propelled this nation to be, in fact, great. Until recently in our history, no matter the disagreements between left and right, all at least paid lip service to the notion of equality and the government’s role in achieving it, as outlined in Jefferson’s Declaration. The argument was about how to achieve that equality. Now, Bannon wants to the make the argument about what is means to be an American at an even more fundamental level, going back to ideas of territory and nationality of the middle ages.

The Political Strategist

As others have pointed out, Steve Bannon is a relative newcomer to politics, particularly as an active participant with the institutions of government, like much of this administration. His prior careers are not unimpressive-- inter alia, U.S. Naval officer, Goldman Sachs, successful enough as a screenwriter and producer that he made a very good living from it-- and it seems clear that he has the intelligence and drive to be successful at whatever he sets his mind to. His newness to the political arts brings with it an energy and excitement about the ideas themselves, an energy that the grizzled and cynical baby boomers who have been on Capitol Hill for too many generations have lost. That, however, is not a virtue in and of itself as he seems to have locked into a particular subset of political ideas without truly challenging them.

Listening to him, he reminds me of a sort of sophomoric political science student that any of us may have known is school. This student had just discovered communism, thinks that it is the best idea ever, never reads another theory or questions the ideas, only allows in things that support the argument, and then wants to tell everyone about it. And that’s what he’s done.

Bannon’s ability to speak convincingly and with charisma, and to do so through others, such as Dave Brat or Donald Trump, is easily and well received for any number of reasons, among them that much of our populace is suffering from a severe downgrade in the ability to both communicate and listen, as exemplified through this stereotype of a fan of the President:



As the President himself said, during the campaign, “We love the poorly educated.”



This moment of candor from the President shows that they are not unaware that those lacking in education respond well to the easily digestible themes of “us v. them,” of “make America great again,” that helped propel him to the Presidency. Cleverly, if not luckily, Bannon has managed to rise to highest levels, much as a result of this strategy, without much questioning.

According to his former screenwriting partner, Julia Jones, Bannon’s interest in politics began in earnest after the events of September 11, 2001, and the event, to her observation, changed him. Even prior to that, she said that he was fascinated with war and that Sun-tzu’s Art of War was his go-to reference.



[A quick aside: the pain that this woman shows in discussing someone she probably was close to is palpable.]

September 11, it would seem, more deeply instilled within Bannon the "us v. them" mentality that shapes Sun-tzu’s writing. Possibly, 9/11 instilled also a kind of post-traumatic and lasting shock, as it (reasonably) has many others, including, I would argue, the President. Perhaps he lost people he knew on 9/11, but in any case it took his fascination with war to a new level.

Furthermore, an outline of a film proposal done by Bannon in 2007, Destroying the Great Satan: The Rise of Islamic Facism [sic] in America, states that despite possible good intentions, the media, Jews, and government agencies were helping to create an environment supportive of jihadists wanting to create an Islamic state in America. He speaks also of the Muslim Brotherhood more specifically, and has propagated conspiracy theories, on his radio show and elsewhere, that there is, when taken in sum total, a global Islamic effort to destroy the West, and that the U.S. government is, even if unknowingly, complicit in that effort.

Over time, it would seem, this “them” has grown from terrorists to perhaps all of Islam then to anyone who, quite simply, doesn’t share his philosophy or fears or paranoia, be they foreign or domestic. Not unlike the aforementioned sophomore poli-sci student, he is 100% sure that he is right. Opportunities to convince him otherwise are limited as, not unlike his boss, he lives in an ivory tower far from the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Not surprisingly, he is reputed to be a stern leader demanding discipline and obedience-- he has no tolerance for dissent, especially at the core, philosophical level.

In any case, Bannon blames the U.S. government for allowing an Islamic state to gain a foothold in America. He attacks that belief with an argument that government agencies are bad for the bottom line, and therefore should disappear. In terms of what that means for domestic politics, if those agencies go, the executive will undoubtedly be weakened as it will not be able to either create or enforce the regulations that gives it its power.

In such a circumstance, Bannon, ever the student of war and history, seeks to make the people’s/populists’ branch-- the House of Representatives-- as the real seat of power, not unlike Hitler’s use of the Reichstag in the early-to-mid 1930s. In such a circumstance, the Speaker of the House would become the most powerful person in American politics.

Furthermore, Bannon comes along with congressional districts gerrymandered to the right to such a degree, thanks, inter alia, to Karl Rove and REDMAP, that a Republican majority may not disappear anytime soon. Democrats may get millions more votes across the nation, but if the districts are shaped in ways that crack or split or pack those votes to make them ineffective, it doesn’t matter.

Exacerbating the problem is that in 33 states, Republicans control both legislative houses, and in 25 of those do so alongside a Republican governor. In most states, the legislative chambers have the primary responsibility for redistricting for both Congressional and their own, state, districts. Unless Democrats can make significant headway at the state level by the time of the next decennial census in 2020, when the bulk of redistricting is done, this could be a long period of Republican majority at both the state and federal levels.

Is there any question as to why Rep. Paul Ryan sits quietly, smiling, whenever he is near the President? He knows his time is coming. The President is just a term-limited stooge.

Who is “Them” and Who is “Us”?

This all then begs the question: who, in his mind, is “us,” and who is “them”? Many arguments have been made, including previously by me on this website, that he is driven by discrimination, but now I am not so sure. Generally speaking, nationalism is most commonly about a "shared cultural heritage," and Bannon doesn’t appear to stray too far from that notion. Discrimination against many others is woven into his work, to be sure, but that may be the unavoidable result of it. Fundamentally, however, it is a hate of Islam that is the true force behind his actions.

If you asked him what the shared cultural heritage is that makes an American, and even if he were to answer 100% completely honestly, I now doubt that race or ethnicity would be an obvious part of his answer. If pressed he might admit to some religious component as he and his spawn (Dave Brat, in particular) often speak of Judeo-Christian values as being what makes us. To them, this delineates the west against the Muslim east.

To him, however, that’s not the main point. The main point is, quite simply, to protect “the flower of mankind.” I don’t think he’d care if some of those fighting to that end didn’t look 100% like the other soldiers around them, as long as they shared those values. But if to actuate this goal people get left behind, kicked out, hurt, or killed, and if they all happen to be of a same subset of our current society, then so be it. The ends, after all, justify the means.

This is why his comment that Breitbart news is “the platform of the alt-right” doesn’t truly sound as if he was saying that he’s a racist. What I now think he meant is that if the alt-right wants to follow along and be his foot soldiers, he’s fine with that. He knows that to win battles, he needs allies, and Breitbart has helped cultivate them, even if they are odious racists. That’s fine with him, as long as they are devoted.

To Bannon, "American," like "Saxon," or "Norman," or “Hun,” or whatever tribe or clan that then evolved into modern nation-states, is something concrete and tangible, and that is what is needed to fight his “war of immense proportions.” It is clear that he has no interest in trying to convince even those who, given a more accessible explanation or argument (as George W. Bush demonstrated in driving this country to war with Iraq), might still follow him. That, after all, might lead to questions and disagreements and dissension in the ranks.

From this fear of dissent his war with the media is born, and it is both real and symbolic. He can’t have the media be a trusted source, or, when it inevitably pokes holes in his argument, people will stop listening. So he is dealing with them directly by cutting them out. The symbolic nature of making the media the enemy is that it gives the true believers an enemy to rally against that they can see and understand for themselves, without having to explain the greater historical context from 723 A.D.

In a similar vein, and in more direct and violent way, the Director of the National Rifle Association is now rallying conservatives against "the left," writ large. This is perhaps even more frightening as it pits neighbor against neighbor and goes even further to raise suspicions and tension to dangerous levels, as demonstrated in Kansas City this past week.

In the end, “us” is a devoted following to country and King; pawns he can move around the board, who will fight and die for the cause, and who will feel it is an honorable death. If this sounds familiar, it is because it is not unlike how suicidal terrorists, kamikaze pilots, and other martyrs through history have been willing to die for the glory of their act.

One final point-- remember, that the “King” isn’t necessarily the President, as he is term limited and Bannon isn’t so stupid as to even attempt to change that. No, his anointed one is the Speaker of the House, who is not subject to term limits. Call me crazy, but I honestly believe he’s thought this through this far ahead; that it’s all part of the plan.

The Fourth Turning

Bannon is also inspired by a book called The Fourth Turning. This book argues that every 80 or so years, i.e. at the turning of the fourth generation after a prior major historical upheaval-- there is another major upheaval in history: 1780 (American Revolution) to 1860 (Civil War) to 1940 (World War II) to now-- 2020.

The merits of the book’s observations and conclusions are of no import for purposes of this article, except insofar of the undisputed influence they have on Bannon. One of the authors of the book recently published an article where he distanced himself from Bannon, and also explicated his and his now-deceased co-author’s conclusions, and further said that their intent was by no means to promote war.

In any case, The Fourth Turning’s examination of more recent history tells Bannon that we are in another period of crisis. Bannon therefore sees himself as a kind of messianic figure, a chivalrous knight, who will guide western church and culture through against a once again resurgent and invading Islam.

While obviously wrong on many levels, what he fails to see is that his resignation to the conflict combined with his fascination with war are in fact making it a self-fulfilling prophesy. Perhaps that is the only option he sees, or wants to see, as he seeks his seat alongside Charles Martel, who won the Battle of Tours in 732, as another savior of all Christendom. As he asked in the 2014 video discussion-- in 500 years from now how will history perceive what we do today?

Conclusions

I would submit that the following must be accepted as a certainty: that Islam-- in his twisted mind, again, to be clear-- as a historical and present enemy of his romanticized idea of Christianity and the west; and Liberalism, as a philosophy that recognizes equality as important, are Steve Bannon’s enemies, as is anyone who marches with them or who benefit from them. Moreover, while his attacks on the administrative state may seem, to some, anyway, to encourage entrepreneurship, that is only as important as far as it furthers the battles against Islam and liberalism. Lastly, we must accept that Bannon is, like others in history pursuing insane ideologies, incapable of compromise or cooperation.

I believe the current environment, or cycles, of outrage and reaction, if you will, is meant to keep people preoccupied, keep them going from outrage to outrage to outrage, always reacting. This, instead of actively trying to work to stop the madness, because let’s be clear-- as the President’s latest string of tweets about former President Obama spying on him shows-- it is madness and meant to distract.

Bannon et al cannot be allowed to continue to control, seemingly exclusively, the agenda or the news cycle. I’m not sure how to do that, but a first step is to stop consuming each outrage and start working on something else that matters. I have to admit, they are good at this game-- even when Trump is losing, he wins as he controls what has been called “mindshare,” but what I might call one’s personal bandwidth. There’s only so much time in the day, after all. The rare time when the administration has been put on the defensive, however, they make mistakes and weaken their alliances.

Lost in all of Bannon’s railing against the elites, as he did extensively in his film Generation Zero, is the irony that he, too, is an elite. Rich. Part of the Wall Street cabal on the one hand, the Hollywood movie-making set on the other. Not just military, but an officer. An author. A holder of multiple degrees from elite universities. He has used this broad background, strong education, and storytelling skills to convince enough of the right people with the right money and the right ignorance that conflict is the right choice. He is an intelligent man who was fascinated by war, as a hobby, and was then hurt by a horrific attack on our nation. He developed his political worldview in a vacuum, like a savant, and he has had the time, money, and opportunity to pursue his ideology like few before him.

In some ways, he is a sort of romantic, viewing the world as only a knight of the realm could. It is as if he refuses to see how the world has changed in the centuries since 1529. He is a man stuck in the past, refusing to acknowledge the advances in society. He wants to close the castle gate, raise the drawbridge, and if you approach: beware, for there are no friends outside the wall.

To be honest, Bannon’s ascent is stunning-- an actual American success story. Politically, before the past presidential campaign, he had run only one other political campaign, in 2014. Personally, he has changed from career to career and not only survived, but thrived, something not many of us could do. His audience until the past few years was tiny, and then exploded.

Through a confluence of both determined work and good (for him) fortune, he has gathered not insignificant allies: wealthy people and families, the border patrol, the NRA, unions, the under- and uneducated, racists and bigots, those convinced that 9/11 means we are at war with all of Islam, those whose lives have actually been-- or feel that America has been-- negatively affected by freer global trade and immigration, businesspersons of all levels and wealth who feel that government regulation is stealing their profits, people who resented a black president and wouldn’t allow another “token” presidency, those who believed we were lucky to survive a socialist as President, young people who hadn’t yet found their way and to whom he gave a home, a restless population still stung by a global recession, to name but a few. An odd coalition to be sure, but it is working.

He reached out internationally, as well, expanding Breitbart to Europe, and making other connections with the nationalist movements of other countries, as evidenced, inter alia, by Marie Le Pen’s visit to New York and Trump Tower shortly after the election. He has connected also with the Vatican’s more traditionalist wing, most of whom have concerns related to the direction of Catholicism under the current Pope, Francis, as he tries to open Catholicism to greater modernity. The list could go on. He has molded this coalition together, and now is propelling it, seemingly inevitably, toward still greater conflict.

Just remember this: Steve Bannon does not hold American values in his heart. He does not believe in equality as a concept or a worthwhile pursuit. He calls himself a Christian-- but does not have compassion. He allies himself with the somehow disaffected-- but not to help them, only to use them as pawns.

While Bannon et al must be defeated, they are not the only problem. We, the people, have been, as well. For too long, we have only observed our systems, not participated in them, or gotten lost in the trappings of modern society. In either case, we have allowed those in and with power and wealth to twist the system to their own selfish ends without consequence. Worse, in some cases, such as the bailouts in 2008, we gave their intransigence both our tacit support and money.

Realizing this puts us in a place, however, to utilize the incredible experience we have as the world’s longest running republican constitutional democracy, coupled with the incredible power of American innovation and technology, to find novel and more effective solutions to the problems that we face. We are smarter than just pointing fingers, better than making excuses, more compassionate than arguing over whose fault it is.

To stop all this, we must re-find and re-commit to a sense of purpose, to an American purpose, to a sense of purpose for government in the 21st century. For too long we have been told that "government is the problem," and we are now living those results. Saying that government is the problem is nothing but destructive, for, as Jefferson said in the Declaration, it is government, with the people's consent, that is the instrument through which equality is achieved. Government is a necessity, and We, the People, need to re-claim the power held in the requirement of our consent.

Change is needed, I think that is something about which we all can agree. It would be better, however, to pursue these changes by embracing the future instead of looking, as Steve Bannon is, to an ancient and violent past. That past is no more relevant to how the world is today than it is related to what it means to be a true American.