DOCSLIB.ORG

In 2016, Steve Bannon Played a Critical Role in Electing the Current President of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In 2016, Steve Bannon Played a Critical Role in Electing the Current President of the United States In 2016, Steve Bannon played a critical role in electing the current President of the United States. On Election Night I wrote a piece for our website that this event represented “a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.” Unfortunately, this was, if anything, an understatement of what was to come. Today, The New Yorker announced that, as part of our annual Festival, I would conduct an interview with Bannon. The reaction on social media was critical and a lot of the dismay and anger was directed at me and my decision to engage him. Some members of the staff, too, reached out to say that they objected to the invitation, particularly the forum of the festival. The effort to interview Bannon at length began many months ago. I originally reached out to him to do a lengthy interview with “The New Yorker Radio Hour.” He knew that our politics could not be more at odds––he reads The New Yorker––but he said he would do it when he had a chance. It was only later that the idea arose of doing that interview in front of an audience. The main argument for not engaging someone like Bannon is that we are giving him a platform and that he will use it, un- filtered, to propel further the “ideas” of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and illiberalism. But to interview Bannon is not to endorse him. By conducting an interview with one of Trumpism’s leading creators and organizers, we are hardly pulling him out of obscurity. Ahead of the mid-term elections and with 2020 in sight, we’d be taking the opportunity to question someone who helped assemble Trumpism. Early this year, Michael Lewis interviewed Bannon, who made it plain how he viewed his work in the campaign. “We got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall,” Bannon said. “This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” To hear this was valuable, as it revealed something about the nature of the speaker and the campaign he helped to lead. The point of an interview, a rigorous interview, particularly in a case like this, is to put pressure on the views of the person being questioned. There’s no illusion here. It’s obvious that no matter how tough the questioning, Bannon is not going to burst into tears and change his view of the world. He believes he is right and that his ideological opponents are mere “snowflakes.” The question is whether an interview has value in terms of fact, argument, or even exposure, whether it has value to a reader or an audi- ence. Which is why Dick Cavett, in his time, chose to interview Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Or it’s why Oriana Fal- laci, in “Interview with History,” a series of question-and-answer meetings with Henry Kissinger and Ayatollah Khomeini and others, contributed something to our understanding of those figures. Fallaci hardly changed the minds of her subjects, but she did add something to our understanding of who they were. This isn’t a First Amendment question; it’s a question of putting pressure on a set of arguments and prejudices that have influenced our politics and a President still in office. Some on social media have said that there is no point in talking to Bannon because he is no longer in the White House. But Bannon has already exerted enormous impact on Trump; his rhetoric, ideas, and tactics are evident in much of what this President does and says and intends. We heard Bannon in the inaugural address, which announced this Presidency’s divi- siveness, in the Muslim ban, and in Trump’s reaction to Charlottesville.What’s more, Bannon has not retired. His attempt to get Roy Moore elected in Alabama failed but he has gone on to help further the trend of illiberal, nationalist movements around the country and abroad. There are many ways for a publication like ours to do its job: investigative reporting; pointed, well-argued opinion pieces; Profiles; reporting from all over the country and around the world; radio and video interviews; even live interviews. At the same time, many of our readers, including some colleagues, have said that the Festival is different, a different kind of forum. It’s also true that we pay an honorarium, that we pay for travel and lodging. (Which does not happen, of course, when we interview someone for an article or for the radio.) I don’t want well-meaning readers and staff members to think that I’ve ignored their concerns. I’ve thought this through and talked to colleagues––and I’ve re-considered. I’ve changed my mind. There is a better way to do this. Our writers have interviewed Steve Bannon for The New Yorker before, and if the opportunity presents itself I’ll interview him in a more traditionally journalistic setting as we first discussed, and not on stage. —David Remnick.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disruptor in Chief
    the author(s) 2019 ISSN 1473-2866 (Online) ISSN 2052-1499 (Print) www.ephemerajournal.org volume 19(3): 663-670 Disruptor in chief Thomas Lopdrup-Hjorth review of Woodward, B. (2018) Fear – Trump in the White House. London: Simon & Schuster (HB, pp xxii + 420, £12,29, ISBN: 978-1-4711-8129-0) Bob Woodward’s book Fear: Trump in the White House was one of the most awaited, hyped, and talked about books of 2018 – and understandably so. Woodward has authored or coauthored 18 books, several of which have portrayed American presidents and topped the national bestseller-lists. His previous work, not least with Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post, has earned him fame and acclaim, and has, among other things, been instrumental in starting a process that brought a former president down (e.g. Bernstein and Woodward, 1974). In 1973, the Washington Post received a Pulitzer Price for public service for the reporting Woodward and Bernstein did on the Watergate break-in. Here, they revealed how the scandal had ties all the way to the White House, implicating President Nixon who had to resign, as the nefarious details were uncovered. Woodward’s role in shaping America’s recent political history explains the hype and anticipation leading up to the publication of his latest book on Trump in the White House. And it perhaps also explains some of the mild disappointment generated in reading the book – at least for readers who had expected (or hoped for) consequences that merely gestured in the direction of those generated by the disclosure of the Watergate-scandal.
    [Show full text]
  • How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics
    GETTY CORUM IMAGES/SAMUEL How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Tracing the origins of white supremacist ideas 13 How did this start, and how can it end? 16 Conclusion 17 About the author and acknowledgments 18 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States is living through a moment of profound and positive change in attitudes toward race, with a large majority of citizens1 coming to grips with the deeply embedded historical legacy of racist structures and ideas. The recent protests and public reaction to George Floyd’s murder are a testament to many individu- als’ deep commitment to renewing the founding ideals of the republic. But there is another, more dangerous, side to this debate—one that seeks to rehabilitate toxic political notions of racial superiority, stokes fear of immigrants and minorities to inflame grievances for political ends, and attempts to build a notion of an embat- tled white majority which has to defend its power by any means necessary. These notions, once the preserve of fringe white nationalist groups, have increasingly infiltrated the mainstream of American political and cultural discussion, with poi- sonous results. For a starting point, one must look no further than President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for policy and chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller. In December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch published a cache of more than 900 emails2 Miller wrote to his contacts at Breitbart News before the 2016 presidential election.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate and Foreign Interests Behind White House Push to Transfer U.S
    Corporate and Foreign Interests Behind White House Push to Transfer U.S. Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia Prepared for Chairman Elijah E. Cummings Second Interim Staff Report Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives July 2019 oversight.house.gov EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 19, 2019, the Committee on Oversight and Reform issued an interim staff report prepared for Chairman Elijah E. Cummings after multiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. As explained in the first interim staff report, under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, the United States may not transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country without the approval of Congress in order to ensure that the agreement meets nine nonproliferation requirements to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. These agreements, commonly known as “123 Agreements,” are typically negotiated with career experts at the National Security Council (NSC) and the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy. The “Gold Standard” for 123 Agreements is a commitment by the foreign country not to enrich or re-process nuclear fuel and not to engage in activities linked to the risk of nuclear proliferation. During the Obama Administration, Saudi Arabia refused to agree to the Gold Standard. During the Trump Administration, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) went further, proclaiming: “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” There is strong bipartisan opposition to abandoning the “Gold Standard” for Saudi Arabia in any future 123 Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Generals
    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE Trump’s Generals: A Natural Experiment in Civil-Military Relations JAMES JOYNER Abstract President Donald Trump’s filling of numerous top policy positions with active and retired officers he called “my generals” generated fears of mili- tarization of foreign policy, loss of civilian control of the military, and politicization of the military—yet also hope that they might restrain his worst impulses. Because the generals were all gone by the halfway mark of his administration, we have a natural experiment that allows us to com- pare a Trump presidency with and without retired generals serving as “adults in the room.” None of the dire predictions turned out to be quite true. While Trump repeatedly flirted with civil- military crises, they were not significantly amplified or deterred by the presence of retired generals in key roles. Further, the pattern continued in the second half of the ad- ministration when “true” civilians filled these billets. Whether longer-term damage was done, however, remains unresolved. ***** he presidency of Donald Trump served as a natural experiment, testing many of the long- debated precepts of the civil-military relations (CMR) literature. His postelection interviewing of Tmore than a half dozen recently retired four- star officers for senior posts in his administration unleashed a torrent of columns pointing to the dangers of further militarization of US foreign policy and damage to the military as a nonpartisan institution. At the same time, many argued that these men were uniquely qualified to rein in Trump’s worst pro- clivities. With Trump’s tenure over, we can begin to evaluate these claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Alex Jones Joe Rogan Rant Transcript
    Alex Jones Joe Rogan Rant Transcript Downwind and pyknic Hunter sheddings so digitately that Felicio reigns his moles. Low and inkier Vergil dialogize so triatomically that Zak lunt his sixtieth. Is Marlon cumulate or slumberous after indisputable Montague decree so sure-enough? All we thought and money and move in this phone during important lesson on joe rogan is joe rogan interviewing alex jones made the Retail shopping mall can give his cause and what we try batting practice makes you begin? Second amendment case, alex up on alex jones joe rogan rant transcript could. This like instant pot test can be heavily criticized. Pride, and a second flush has here taken into custody. Hate us state is still talk about the app really about running the corner might be seen as glenn is how chronicling their name. Nfl for its own pipeline and happiness comes wearable technology expos i know, they use it must control and then turned out of peaceful revolution? Glenn exposed months on one. Norman rockwell tell a strategy to get viruses will feature film and harry and click subscribe and an interaction. But there on my first off his three children are we can continue with? Is a conservative political discourse into abortions harm would you trash mike rowe joins alex jones joe rogan rant transcript of people in a strong negative visualization is? Attorney Shon Hopwood joins Glenn to liberate prison reform and his memoirs time turning in prison. State investment banker in? Interest rates like ronald reagan like direct contact, alex jones joe rogan rant transcript was.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Miller Trump's Right-Hand Troll
    Trump’s Right-Hand Troll Stephen Miller once tormented liberals at Duke. Now the president’s speechwriter and immigration enforcer is deploying the art of provocation from the White House. Photo illustration by WG600* MCKAY COPPINS | MAY 28, 2018 | POLITICS T’S LATE ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON in March, and I’m sitting across from Stephen Miller in his spacious, I sunlit West Wing office, trying to figure out whether he’s trolling me. To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app. This is no easy task. A provocateur as skilled as Miller doesn’t just announce when he’s saying something outlandish to get a rise out of you—he tries to make you think he means it. So you have to look for the subtle tells. The fleeting half-smirk when he refers to himself as a “conservative social-justice warrior” early in the conversation. The too-emphatic tone he takes later when he says the best movie he’s seen in the past 15 years is The Dark Knight Rises, and then chides you for not properly appreciating its commentary on the French Revolution. “It takes on the issue of anarchy and social breakdown in a really interesting way,” he says of the Batman movie. “There’s a lot going on in the film that you, of all people, I’d have thought would be all over.” “Me … specifically?,” I ask, taking the bait. “Well,” he replies, letting the mask slip and a sarcastic grin surface, “it’s just your reputation as a very deep thinker.” Perched on a high-backed chair, Miller looks as if he’s posing for a cologne ad in a glossy magazine—his slender frame wrapped in an elegantly tailored suit, his arm draped over the backrest, his legs crossed at the knee just so.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Conservative Leader
    Dear Conservative Leader: The campaign against our friend and fellow conservative Steve Bannon has reached a fever pitch, and it is urgent that you join me in letting President Trump know just how deeply it would divide his winning coalition if he were to cave-in to those who wish to derail his agenda by removing Steve Bannon from the White House staff. Since the first day they joined the Trump campaign there have been two people we conservatives could rely upon to share our ideas and values and take our concerns and issues directly to Donald Trump: Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon. And since the day he was appointed Senior Advisor and Chief Strategist to President Trump, Steve has been under constant attack; lately the attacks and smears have reached a fever pitch with almost daily leaks that "Bannon is on his way out." And we all know that if Steve Bannon is fired then Kellyanne, Stephen Miller, Paul Teller and the rest of the conservatives on the White House staff will be soon out the door as well. While President Trump recently pushed-back against the attacks on Bannon saying, "I like him. He is a good man. He is not a racist. I can tell you that… He is a good person. He actually gets a very unfair press in that regard," President Trump also reminded everyone that he was successful in the Republican primaries before Bannon joined his campaign. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. He is a good person and I think the press treats him frankly very unfairly," Trump concluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutually Assured Blackmail: Roger Stone Tries to Undercut Steve Bannon’S Power
    MUTUALLY ASSURED BLACKMAIL: ROGER STONE TRIES TO UNDERCUT STEVE BANNON’S POWER Roger Stone is trying (thus far unsuccessfully) to pick a fight with Steve Bannon and the Mercers. First, earlier in June on Alex Jones’ show, Roger Stone accused Bannon, among other things, of lying in his testimony against Stone and blackmailing Trump to get a pardon. Stone: Let’s me very clear. Not only did Steve Bannon steal the name of my Infowars show with the great American Owen Shroyer, ‘The War Room,’ but he testified falsely at my trial against me. He was an informant for Robert Mueller. If you take his sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, which was sealed at the time of my trial, and his testimony on the stand at my trial, he clearly perjured himself in my trial. So right now, here, today, I am challenging Steve Bannon to come on Infowars and debate this, let’s have it out. Alex, you can moderate it, so it stays civil. But he needs to answer as to why he was working with Robert Mueller to destroy me and send me to prison. So there it is. The challenge, the gauntlet has been laid down, big Steve. Cmon, sloppy Steve. We can find a suit and tie for you that’s clean, I think. And you should come on Infowars and answer what I just said. And by the way, all you little Bannon groupies who want to go on social media and challenge me? I wouldn’t suggest it. Because I will merely block you.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Days of Trump's America: a Timeline 18
    100 DAYS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THEIR AGENDA INFILTRATE THE MAINSTREAM a report by the southern poverty law center © 2017 ABOUT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Alabama, is a nonpartisan 501(c) (3) civil rights organization founded in 1971 and dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information about THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER visit www.splcenter.org 2 100 days in trump's america CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TAKES SHAPE 7 100 DAYS REPORT PROFILES 9 THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST-IN-CHIEF: TRUMP AND THE MAINSTREAMING OF THE RADICAL RIGHT 14 100 DAYS OF TRUMP'S AMERICA: A TIMELINE 18 HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN OUR DEMOCRACY 26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 28 southern poverty law center 3 4 100 days in trump's america WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THEIR AGENDA INFILTRATE THE MAINSTREAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As he spoke to the nation on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump reminded white nationalists why they had invested so much hope in him as their champion and redeemer. He painted a bleak picture of America: a nation of crumbling, third-world infrastructure, “rusted-out factories,” leaky borders, inner cities wallowing in pov- erty, a depleted military and a feckless political class that prospered as the country fell into ruin. He promised an “America First” policy that would turn it all around. “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” Trump declared. The inaugural address echoed the themes of a campaign that had electrified the white nationalist – or “alt-right” – movement with its promise to stop all Muslim travelers at the border and deport millions of undocumented immigrants – killers and “rapists,” Trump called them.
    [Show full text]
  • UNCLASSIFIED 1 UNCLASSIFIED March 26, 2018 MINORITY VIEWS
    UNCLASSIFIED March 26, 2018 MINORITY VIEWS On March 1, 2017, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) approved a bipartisan “Scope of Investigation” to guide the Committee’s inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.1 In announcing these parameters for the House of Representatives’ only authorized investigation into Russia’s meddling, the Committee’s leadership pledged to undertake a thorough, bipartisan, and independent probe. The Committee explained at the time that it would “conduct interviews, take witness testimony, and review all reporting underlying” the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s covert campaign.2 Importantly, Chairman Devin Nunes and Ranking Member Adam Schiff promised the American public that the Committee would “seek to ensure […] that allegations of Russian collusion with any U.S. Persons and the leaks of classified information are fully investigated.” Chairman Nunes vowed that “on a bipartisan basis, we will fully investigate all the evidence we collect and follow that evidence wherever it leads,” a promise echoed by Ranking Member Schiff, who said that the Committee “must follow the facts wherever they may lead, leaving no stone unturned, and that must also include both the Russian hacking and dumping of documents as well as any potential collusion between Russia and U.S. citizens.”3 One year later, the Committee’s Majority has shattered its commitment by rushing to end its investigation prematurely, even as it continues to investigate President Donald Trump’s political opponents, our intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and diplomatic corps, and former members of the Administration of President Barack Obama.
    [Show full text]