This is Bannon’s Crisis
I first began writing essays for Trump World in February of 2017. One of my earliest was called The Bully and Bannon. It was an attempt to try to predict what the Trump Administration would do through the known views of Trump’s political “wizard,” Steve Bannon. Trump himself seemed malleable, willing to take on whatever view achieved his goal, but Bannon was much better defined and had the President’s ear.
Bannon is no longer a part of the Administration, though adherents like advisor Stephen Miller are still in place. But the President believes that Bannon’s philosophy won the Presidency, and that it will keep him there.
There’s a lot of what Bannon believed that has come to pass. His philosophy was that the US is stronger in one-on-one relationships with countries, rather than in international groups. The size of the US economy gives it the advantage in almost every bilateral negotiation. We are the big bully. So, the United States has removed itself from multi-lateral treaties and groups. The Pan-Pacific Trade Agreement, the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran Nuclear Agreement and the threats to the North American Free Trade Agreement are just a few we have reneged on. In addition, the actions at the last G-7 summit, where the US declared a tariff war on our allies Canada, Mexico, and the European Union fits in with Bannon’s view.
The same holds true with the actions towards North Korea. The beginning strategy was one of bluff and bluster, from “fire and fury” to “bigger buttons.” Then, without asking for the aid of other nations, including South Korea, the US opened bilateral negotiations with the North with a Trump/Kim summit. Whatever the outcome of this strategy will be, it fits perfectly with the bi-lateral view.
Bannon also believed that the US needed to stop being the “role model” for other nations. His view was that the US should do what’s best for the US, no matter what impact it might have on others. It’s not surprising then, that long held allies, NATO in particular, have felt slighted and insulted. This view also lead to US actions in the Middle East, where the transfer of the embassy to Israel to Jerusalem cost hundreds of Palestinian lives. That wasn’t “our concern.”
But perhaps one of the scarier Bannon philosophies was his world-view. He saw the word poised on the brink of a world conflict between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern; between Muslims and Christians, and between white people and brown. He looked to nations with similar problems to ally with, most notably Russia, with its significant and restive Muslim population. Bannon, and potentially now the US government, is on the side of the nationalist movements in Europe, including Brexit in the United Kingdom, the new leader of Italy, and other far right organizations.
It should be no surprise that President Trump tweeted yesterday:
“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”
There is no false nicety here: this is about race. It’s not just Europe; it’s here too. The US actions on the Southern border, seizing the children of immigrants who commit the misdemeanor offense of crossing the border outside of the “ports of entry” wouldn’t be happening if they were Norwegian refugees. It is no surprise that Attorney General Sessions was parsing the difference between his actions and those of the Nazis on Fox News last night. There are too many similarities.
The “browning” of America, where “whites” become a minority by 2050, is a focus of the White House. Presidential actions from the travel ban, to Charlottesville, to Puerto Rico, to the border, all have one thing in common. The President reacts very differently to the problems of “brown” people then he does for “white” people. And it is exactly what we should have expected from Steve Bannon.
We have placed this philosophy in power. We have elected the radical right to run America, whether we knew it at the time or not. It is now up to us to determine what we can do about it. We can accept this nationalist, racist, apocalyptic view of America’s future; or we can stand against it. We are in the same position as the Abolitionists of the 1850’s and the civil rights marchers of the 1960’s.
We don’t have a border crisis; we have a moral crisis.
Totally agree, and I fear another civil war in the future. We are already at war with words on social media, and emotions are running high.