It is no secret that those aligned to the left maligned the presence of Steve Bannon at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I would imagine that there are conservatives and liberals alike who took a sigh of relief upon seeing him removed from his position as White House chief strategist. At first, I would have counted myself among you. Bannon’s cries for trade protectionism and anti-globalism smack of such mercantilist economic theories as Colbertism from the 17th century (the finance minister under Louis XIV not the host of The Late Show). Yet as the dust settles from his exit, my fear is that Bannon is probably going go back to doing what he does best: mobilizing a conservative base through the formats that are perhaps the most effective and poignant to many right-wing voters.
The Rise and Fall of Bannon
Bannon’s mad-scientist like presence at the White House was unsettling to many from the beginning given that he is partially responsible for the creation of, in his own words, “the platform for the alt-right.” At the beginning of the campaign, my assumption was that Bannon was simply a tool to access and maintain the fervent Trump base. Sites like Breitbart are the gateway to the opinions of the far right, which were integral in swaying the primary election and then the general election. Bannon’s connection to Breitbart would have been invaluable in achieving that goal as many of these media sites came out swinging early and often for the Trump campaign. In Trump, the alt-right and other conservative factions had finally found a candidate willing to shove their ideals down the gullet of American mainstream politics.
Bannon first joined the Trump campaign as campaign strategist in August of 2016, after the primaries had already concluded. While there was plenty of criticism of the appointment from within the Republican establishment, his presence was tolerated both as a part of the campaign and then as a part of White House staff upon election. Donald Trump constructed a National Security Council of several seasoned generals plus Bannon and Michael Flynn. And while Flynn was seasoned, he was also short-lived after President Obama specifically warned Trump not to hire him as part of his staff. Bannon’s presence on the National Security Council drew outrage from liberals and conservatives alike, calling for the National Security Council to be devoid of politicism and rhetoric, something which Bannon brought during his stint with the Navy. While there are several theories regarding his removal, ranging from his conflicts with Jared Kushner, to his rumored maneuvering against General McMaster, to the simple theory that his job was to be Flynn’s babysitter, Bannon’s fall from the White House most likely started at this point. While the White House maintained it wasn’t in anyway a demotion, reports within the White House continued to insinuate that Bannon was becoming increasingly isolated from the President, up until he did not even join the President on his 2-week “working-vacation” where his termination was most likely decided upon.
But the rise and fall of Bannon is well documented. There is no insight to be offered beyond the numerous reports that have circulated regarding his ultimate separation from the White House. The more pressing question is what this means for both Bannon and the future of the administration. To many, the answer would seem to be that this is a positive sign. Perhaps General Kelly is finally reigning Trump in and righting the ship[i]. However, Bannon was never the real problem or purveyor of the dysfunction within the White house. He is also not the source of some of Trump’s more unsavory ideologies which he promoted before Bannon joined Trump’s campaign. Ultimately, the chaos that has been constantly reported and reaffirmed comes from a total vacuum of leadership and direction within the executive branch and the only person to be blamed for that is Donald Trump. As for Trump’s policy agenda and the administration’s inability to push it, that comes mostly from the simple fact that his policies are either unpopular, harmful, divisive or some combination of the three. No part of the internal and external turmoil which the administration now faces has anything to do with leaks, the media, Hilary Clinton, or any other outside force that Trump may wish to point the finger at. But alas this topic deserves its own essay and for the sake of staying on point, that will simply have to rest.
Castling
The reason that I am not so hopeful after Bannon’s removal, is that Bannon is now free to go back to what he was so effective at doing: directing, corralling, and generating alt-right fervor. It appears that his efforts may now turn to undermining the Trump administration, despite his assurance that he would continue to fight from the outside for the agenda Trump ran on. Since his reinstatement at Breitbart, the major headlines have targeted several individuals within Trump’s current set of advisers which Bannon reportedly clashed with, perhaps indicating that the agenda Trump ran on and Trump are no longer the same thing. But regardless of whatever personal vendettas Bannon may have, I am not so much concerned with his ongoing relationship with the Trump campaign, but with the remaining groups of political constituents who prop up his administration and provide an opportunity to win another election. If Breitbart and similar news organizations feel that Trump has severed the connection with the base, my guess is that they will be able to find a new candidate next election who will be able to carry the banner. If the far-right can push a candidate like Donald Trump through the Republican primaries, then they should have no trouble finding a replacement who is equally qualified (or maybe unqualified is the better term).
And this is the thing Steve Bannon does so well. As much as you may despise his beliefs, Bannon is correct about several realities regarding the current state of American politics. While many on the left want to wave the alt-right away as simply racism, xenophobia, hate groups, and the like; that is exactly what Bannon and the rest of the alt-right movement wants the liberal community to do. While racists, xenophobes, homophobes and white nationalists all certainly identify with the alt-right, not all those who identify with the alt-right are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and white nationalists. Part of the reason for this stigmatization is that many of the people who believe these things about the average Breitbart reader have never actually gone to Breitbart where the movement is to a great degree informed or managed. While the comment section of Breitbart’s editorial might lead you to the conclusion that a large portion of its readers hold some highly insensitive and offensive beliefs, these are the “hyper-users” if you will. People who are willing to comment are generally the most outraged and the most emboldened (in the new era of online anonymity) and therefore they likely do not accurately reflect the average consumer of alt-right rhetoric. These comments certainly don’t lend themselves to a positive interpretation of the work Breitbart and others are putting out and endorsing. It could certainly be argued that many headlines that Breitbart uses are intentionally provocative as courting this type of controversy is just one tactic that Breitbart may employ. But we cannot judge Breitbart for the worst of its readers, just like they shouldn’t dismiss the Black Lives Matter movement over the worst of its followers.
I mention Black Lives Matter very specifically, as this is a rather poignant lesson in the tactics Breitbart employs in pushing certain pieces of information. In September of 2015 Breitbart published the following story about a man who claimed his truck was vandalized by the Black Lives Matter movement. And while I do not fault Breitbart for publishing the story as it was covered by the local news at the time, the facts behind the article turned out be a fabrication. Police later discovered that the man in fact defaced his own vehicle with anti-police rhetoric and was charged with filing a false police report. Now under normal pretenses, a journalistic organization would need to address this issue either with a retraction or with equivalent coverage of the new developments. The article Breitbart originally published went out of its way to articulate the perceived hatred from the movement toward a disabled vet. The article then details about how a local cop is worried about escalation past just vandalism. The article then immediately follows that quote with claims that members of the Black Lives Matter movement were calling for the lynching of white people and cops. So when the story turned out not to be true, it is fair to say that the response was not adequate to the level of derision and fear-mongering this article aimed to impart. Breitbart’s follow up does not link nor even mention their original coverage of this incident. If you read these two articles nine days apart (the amount of time between when these two articles were published) you would have a difficult time even connecting that these articles are related to the same incident. And perhaps even more egregious is that the original article Breitbart published is still available on it’s website in the same form it was almost two years ago. The original article detailing events that were a farce, got over 7,500 Facebook shares while the follow up got 12 shares. The original article garnered over 700 comments while the follow up article received not one single comment. And finally, anyone who lands on the original article without any context for the totality of the incident, would have no idea that the events therein were a hoax.
There is plenty to be said about the dishonesty with which these outlets conduct themselves. While Fox, Breitbart and others complain about how the “mainstream media” (popularly referred to as MSM for short) skew their coverage of events and focus on anti-Trump stories, these media outlets turn around and employ the exact same tactics, but to even greater lengths; suppressing or completely disregarding events that do not comply with the message the outlet wishes to send. In an interview with Bill Maher, Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow admitted that Breitbart actively ignored and refused to report developments in the ongoing Russia investigation, claiming the reasoning was that there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia and the network wished to cover stories that they felt were not getting enough attention. But to ignore that story based on that logic is to insinuate that the only reason to cover the FACT that Russia intervened in the election would be if Trump somehow lead a conspiracy. The topic of Russia and its involvement in the election is a discussion that also requires a far more detailed scalpel than I cannot provide within the scope of this article. But anyone of any party should be able to admit that this is an event that demands attention and demands investigation, regardless of whether it may undermine the efficacy of the most recent election. To actively not cover the story and to refuse to inform your readers (regardless of whatever spin the website wishes to weave), is in some way a silent endorsement of the events that transpired and an approving nod to any foreign power that wishes to sway the results of what is supposed to be an autonomous, free, and fair election, as long as that power chooses a candidate Breitbart approves of. And this is especially true when the same Alex Marlow in the same interview, acknowledged that Russia was indeed behind the meddling of the U.S. election. I cannot fathom what the coverage would be if Russia had decided to actively bolster Clinton’s campaign. But that is nothing more then speculation, and for now the subject of Russia must be laid to rest.
Silent Move
The New York Times posted a detailed article regarding the inner workings of Breitbart, and one of the stunning conclusions from the piece is just how influential this one single outlet is and how it achieved that influence in an unprecedentedly short amount of time. The article details the research of two professors, one Yochai Benkler, who is a professor of law at Harvard University, and Ethan Zuckerman, a professor of the practice of media arts and sciences at MIT. The two professors conducted research regarding the democratization of media and ultimately turned their attention to political articles during the time of the election. The results described in the New York Times revealed that Breitbart had become the single most influential conservative leaning media source in the entire election, rivaling the footprints of CNN, The Washington Post, The Hill, and even the New York Times itself[ii]. It dwarfed fellow conservative outlet Fox News in social media shares. The influence of Breitbart cannot be denied and its importance to the current political landscape and its contribution to the polarization of our nation cannot be ignored either. So how is it that within a matter of years, an organization could become one of the most dominant purveyors of political opinion in America?
To start, one must first admit that Breitbart and other right wing outlets did not create the alt-right. The alt-right is now more identifiable as a political group and its aims are more espoused since Breitbart garnered traction; but Bannon did not create the fervor that would help turn the 2016 election. He captured it and managed to mobilize it. One of the keys to Breitbart’s success and perhaps the alt-right’s greatest master stroke, is the creation of a victim mentality of the greater conservative population (the irony being that this is one of the very things they criticize all those liberal “snowflakes” for). Whether it is Breitbart, InfoWars, conservative talk radio and the like, these outlets are engaged in the manufacturing of a war on conservatism whether it exists or not. Take for example the recent comments from the mastermind Bannon himself regarding identity politics which has become one of the fiercer political battle lines in the wake of the events of Charlottesville, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” And all we need to do is look at how Breitbart, Fox News and others have managed to pull off a bait and switch on this debate. While the media rightly focused on the tactless words of Trump following the conflict, conservative outlets focused on the tearing down of Confederate statues. They essentially managed to divert attention from the issue of a President who painted a moral equivalence between bigots and non-bigots (not once but twice), to an issue of the removal of Confederate statues and how this is an assault on American history. The liberals are at the gates calling you racist and they are coming for your artwork. This is the message that is resonating amongst many Americans and it is just one of numerous examples of the problems that have begun to shut down the intellectual and moral debates that need to be had in this country.
In the simplest and most rudimentary terms, these media sources are engaged in the mongering of fear for a way of life that millions of Americans live and believe in. If you are wondering why so many people can believe so wholeheartedly in the presidency of a charlatan then imagine this: Barbarians are flooding across the southern border bringing drugs and displacing jobs for hard-working Americans, but for wanting to defend American autonomy and the ability for the nation you love so dearly to defend and control its borders you are labeled a racist and xenophobe. Meanwhile China and numerous other nations are actively trying to undermine trade relations with the US at our expense, cheating us out of jobs and profits to maintain a massive trade imbalance, and all of this is allowed and tolerated by Obama and the Democrats who are too busy taking care of a few hundred transgendered kids to look out for the millions of Americans whose jobs are threatened. You feel your country becoming weaker economically and militarily and you feel that your way of life is threatened by people who don’t speak the same language as you and who don’t pay the same taxes as you. As you are struggling to find a job in a rural town that seems to be forgotten and uncared for, you are told you are guilty of “white privilege” and life is just easier for you in every way and you should just stop complaining and step aside. If you were to believe these things, then Donald Trump makes complete and total sense as President of the United States. And the only defense you would have and the only true source of information you would have, is Breitbart News and InfoWars which will tell it to you like it really is. These outlets have created a force to defend the interests of a people who feel victimized and project onto the political landscape a voice that many feel has been ignored. But the reality is that this is not an ideological or political bastion built to defend conservative ideals. It is a cage designed to keep these voters in. This is the echo chamber of conservatism that has helped make a large portion of America’s voters completely unreachable in a debate on various issues that are crucial to the country.
To counter, the blame for the division in our country certainly cannot be placed solely at the feet Breitbart, Fox News, InfoWars and the like. This is just one part of a growing problem and the left is not innocent by any means. I would not deny that there are media outlets that lean, promote, and uphold a Democratic ideology. But it must be admitted that there are several outlets that have contributed more than their fair share in the pursuit of controlling, not informing, a piece of America’s electorate.
Grandmaster
If you are a Breitbart reader or an InfoWars listener or simply consider yourself a conservative who feels forced to consume Breitbart’s product for lack of an alternative, please look carefully at the rhetoric of Bannon and others who are responsible for the direction and editorial process for these sources. For Bannon, this is a war he has sworn to carry out. He wants to “defeat the enemy” which is the rhetoric of a general returning to his army of columnists and spinsters to continue a political assault on half of the people who call America home. Someone who wants to “defeat the enemy” is not going to do so with honesty and integrity which are two traits that I would highly value in any form of journalism. Bannon stated upon his exit from the White House, “In many ways I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on. And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with.” Bannon is a brilliant strategist and it is evident in the company he helped build. But it appears to my eyes that the readers and constituents of these media sources are the pawns in Bannon’s political chess match against the ideologies which he detests. And he will fight them with the means that are at his disposal, regardless of whether the worldview he wishes to see realized in America hurts the very people that have helped build the juggernaut that is Breitbart.
In essence, Bannon will most certainly be more effective outside the White House than he was within it. Bannon’s presence at the White House found a way to incite chaos and distrust amongst Trump’s advisors that ended up sabotaging Bannon’s own ability to implement his vision through the Trump administration. As he was busy “fighting his enemies” within the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his “enemies” distanced themselves from a man some assumed was actually feeding negative press back to the media outlet he once founded and built. Whether that theory was true was irrelevant then and it is irrelevant now. The point is that Bannon was ineffective at cobbling his vision from within the political establishment he wished to dismantle. But it must be acknowledged that he was incredibly effective outside of it, doing battle for America, against Americans.
[i] According to the latest reports, General Kelly has instituted a new program where he is baby-proofing the President’s news by monitoring all information, including news articles, and deciding what goes to the President and what doesn’t. While I do not know General Kelly, his motivations, or his politics, I have to believe this is an infinitely better system then a free for all between the various personalities of his cabinet.
[ii] For more detail regarding the methodology for this study and the results, I would suggest reading the scientific article if you have the time.
