In Defense of Extremism.
“Sometimes extremists are right. That’s why they are so extreme.”
Norton Mezvinsky, historian
Having worked in politics, I recognized Steve Bannon over the course of his extended interview with Charlie Rose. Or rather, I recognized his character from various political operations I have been close to.
In the orbit of many elected officials there is often at least one true believer who resides outside the spectrum of conventional political thought. He is a true believer in a cause. The office holder is merely the most convenient host available at the moment through which to pursue the agenda. Despite the risks associated with their unsettling view of the war of ideas as actual combat, they are kept close to the principal as a matter of self-preservation and as a source of wizardry.
Cut loose, they are capable of doing great damage. In close, they are capable of coming up with concepts, tied to core beliefs, that can make a big difference if properly executed. It is usually the job of others on the team to listen to the rantings of the true-believer waiting for that one good idea buried under all the bad, or un-workable ones. Bannon self-identifies as this character.
Using silence to create mystery around his public persona, Bannon has managed to turn himself into someone who is feared and hated by Washington, D.C.’s political and news media establishment. In a town dominated by posers, Bannon is the guy pointing out the hypocrisy on behalf of the common man.
The response to the Rose interview was predictable. Those who believe as Bannon does see him as a prophet and those who despise him, and President Trump, searched the exchange for words and phrases to prove Bannon is evil. None of that is really the point. Bannon has something to teach if you are willing to listen fully while filtering out his most distracting ideas. The points he made during the Rose interview about the state of American society were supported coincidentally by Hillary Clinton as she began her latest book tour.
As early as 2015, there was evidence in the public square that something had changed about political debate in this country. Trump and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders were drawing large crowds by breaking every rule conventional politicians live by. They were saying unpopular things, in some cases insensitive things and in some cases pushing issues polling had warned the other candidates to avoid. In short, they sounded real not packaged. There was a sense neither Trump nor Sanders had put any of their speeches through a focus group for message testing. In that way, they seemed authentic.
Trump and Sanders had something else in common; they were angry and their followers shared that anger. Both also admitted, early on, that they were surprised by their own success. Trump offered to use the skills that made him rich to close the growing gap between the privileged and the rest of us. When he said that he alone knew how the system worked for the elite in this country and therefore he alone could fix it, it was an offer of help that made sense to many.
Despite his own financial success, Bannon revealed himself to Rose as someone with a middle class chip on his shoulder. He realizes Trump is an imperfect politician, but says he sees him as a historic figure who can return fairness and accountability to the United States. Bannon is outraged that no one was sent to prison in the aftermath of the meltdown in the banking industry that came close to collapsing the U.S. economy. He has “contempt” for the foreign policy elite that — through three administrations — dragged the U.S. into conflicts that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He scoffs at members of the media and political establishment who dare judge President Trump. As far as Bannon is concerned, they have no standing on the issue based on their own failures.
The establishment scoffs back. They look at Bannon and see him only as a rumpled, half-shaven, extremist who has no right to be anywhere near the White House, the Capitol or the other institutions of Washington, D.C. To them, he is an aberration who got into their club on a technicality. His ideas are dangerous and based on the selective use of historical facts as foundation.
What exactly Bannon did to help Trump win the presidency or how effective he was inside the White House is unknown. In his own words, his main contribution was reinforcing the idea that Trump could win by embracing a message of economic nationalism. America first. Whenever Trump began to stray, whenever the Trump team began to listen to conventional wisdom, Bannon says he kept the candidate on message. He remains convinced Trump will have a successful first term and win re-election if he works his campaign promises like a punch list.
Despite the disdain the establishment has for Bannon, it appears he was right about the public mood. Trump, a candidate who may not even have believed in himself at the start of his campaign, was able to defeat more than a dozen professional politicians on the road to the Republican nomination and then one of the most well-financed and well-organized political machines in the history of the United States. The defeat of the Clinton apparatus, even if by one-vote, is the equivalent of a landslide under normal circumstances. Trump’s defeat of Clinton should have never happened. She had every advantage.
Trump’s victory was only possible because his team understood, or fell into the understanding, that 2016 was simply a change election and Democrats made the biggest mistake they could have possibly made by nominating someone — in Hillary Clinton — who epitomized the status quo. As a practical matter, every time Clinton criticized Trump for his lack of preparation, his lack of understanding of the ways of Washington, his failure to follow the rules of conventional political debate, millions of Americans who grew up as Bannon did were saying, “Yes, that is exactly what we need. Everything else has failed.”
Bannon’s decision to go public with Rose was timed perfectly with the release of Clinton’s book and her book tour. While it is historically helpful to hear Clinton’s version of events, her national sharing circle plays into Bannon’s hands and only confirms how out of touch the Washington establishment is at this political moment. In the interviews she has given so far, Clinton appears much more open and honest than she was on the campaign trial. Her disgust at losing to a man she considers inferior to her in every way shows she was hit by a force she did not see coming.
The New York Times ran an interview with Clinton conducted by Philip Galanes in the company of the actress America Ferrera at a New York City restaurant. The interview was illustrated with photographs showing Ferrera, a supporter of Clinton, comforting the fallen candidate as the trio discussed her book, the campaign, and the Trump administration. One paragraph in the set up to the interview could not better illustrate the gap between the elites and the middle class Bannon says he represents:
“Over late-afternoon snacks of charred shishito peppers, crispy brussels sprouts and cheese (iced tea for Mrs. Clinton, white wine for Ms. Ferrera) at the Lambs Club restaurant in Manhattan, the pair spoke candidly about the emotional aftermath of Mrs. Clinton’s loss; the deep national divides made plain by the election; and the paths they want to chart going forward.”
It sounds as if Mrs. Clinton has landed on her feet. She has rich and famous friends who think she should be president. As President Trump and Steve Bannon suspect, the news media is still on her side. She still enjoys every advantage, but a sense of entitlement infects her. Nine months after the shock therapy of her loss she still does not see, from her table at the Lambs Club, why voters chose a rich man who prefers junk food over someone with a resume as perfect as hers.
I am among those equally shocked by the outcome of the election and I continue to be shocked by the behavior of President Trump. For me it has never been a matter of policy differences with the president. His personal behavior prevents me from getting to that part of the discussion. I don’t believe he is qualified for any job other than running a family business. Certainly not the presidency. He is still surrounded mostly by people with no experience in government or understanding of how it works. Some are blindly loyal to a man who deserves no loyalty and it comes at the expense of the country.
Hillary Clinton is right. Between the two candidates we had to choose from in 2016 she was clearly the most qualified, but Steve Bannon is also right. The American political establishment has consistently failed the country in recent history and regardless of the risk, the voters who feel left out decided to do something about it. You may not like what he has to say, or how he says it, but Bannon deserves our attention. He was taking notice while others enjoyed prosperity unshared.
