Steve Bannon’s world

I always thought the alt-rightists were still living in the 1930s.  Here’s Yahoo.com:

“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he [Bannon] says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution – conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”

During the 1930s, the US engaged in some of the most counterproductive economic policy in all of American history.  The unemployment rate averaged about 20%.  And speaking of the 1930s, does Huey Long remind you of anyone?  (With luck, Bannon will be kept out of economic policy.)

And here’s the new CIA chief:

With his name circulating as a candidate for the Central Intelligence Agency post, Mr Pompeo took to Twitter on Thursday to promise action on the Iran deal. “I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.”

Wonderful, let’s tear up a nuclear deal that’s actually working.

When some Republican presidential candidates criticised the use of excessive surveillance, Mr Pompeo accused them of being “just as weak as Democrats”. He added in an essay in the National Review: “Less intelligence capacity equals less safety.”

When some Republican presidential candidates criticised the use of excessive surveillance, Mr Pompeo accused them of being “just as weak as Democrats”. He added in an essay in the National Review: “Less intelligence capacity equals less safety.”

That last line is worthy of George Orwell.

And no anti-Muslim bigotry in the Trump administration:

After the 2013 Boston marathon bombing, Mr Pompeo accused Islamic leaders in the US of being “complicit” in terrorist acts by not speaking out more.

“Silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these [terrorist] acts and more importantly still, in those that may well follow,” he said.

Add in that wild and crazy General Flynn, and it’s hard to tell whether Trump is trying to put together an administration, or casting a sequel to Dr. Strangelove:

Mr Flynn was fired from the DIA, the intelligence agency that serves the military, over questions about his ability to lead a big organisation, which raises doubts about how he will manage the national security council. But he was also criticised internally for interpretations that did not align with the views of the analysts who worked for him — leading some people to mock him for propelling “Flynn facts”.

The former official said it was matters like these that made Mr Flynn attractive to Mr Trump, who has also been criticised for egregious lies during the campaign. “That is why Trump likes him. They are similar because they like the big dramatic statement, but when they are confronted with the facts, they kind of say ‘oh really that’s unfortunate’,” said the former official.

And the President that just a few days ago told us that he was going to represent everyone in America, has chosen an Attorney General who was denied a judgeship a while back for a long string of racist and/or borderline racist comments.  (Yes, not every example here is racist, but some are.)

And for those commenters who doubted that Steve Bannon was a racist, check out what he thinks of people like my wife:

In a conversation that actually makes Trump sound reasonable, he tells Bannon that he’s concerned about foreign Ivy League students, highly skilled and otherwise capable of working for or starting their own tech companies, graduating and then returning to their home countries. “When someone is going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Stanford, all the greats” and then graduate, “we throw them out of the country, and they can’t get back in,” he said. “We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country.” To which Bannon replied: “Um.” Trump tried to get Bannon to agree with him, but to no avail. Instead, Bannon suggested there were already too many Asian tech C.E.O.s. in Silicon Valley. “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the C.E.O.s in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, trailing off. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

Is there a bright side to any of this?  I guess you could say that the fascists are no longer blaming everything on the Jews.  Asians and Muslims are the new scapegoats.  (Of course Bannon’s facts are totally wrong, not even close, but when did facts ever matter to Trumpistas?)

As for all you economic conservatives who held your nose and voted for Trump, I hope you are happy now.  No more Obama “abusing the Constitution”.  Now we have a CIA chief who thinks even his fellow Republicans are a bunch of pansies.  You made your deal with the devil, now you’ll have to live with the results.

And as for the commenters who told me Trump was the “dovish candidate” . . .  I’d hate to see your idea of a hawk.


Tags:

 
 
 

35 Responses to “Steve Bannon’s world”

  1. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    18. November 2016 at 18:21

    Good post Scott.

    Ben Shapiro worked with Bannon for years. He verbalizes a few thoughts here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiLD_wmUrDo

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. November 2016 at 18:58

    Interesting. Do you know where the rest of the discussion is? It gets cut off right when he starts to talk about Trump.

  3. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    18. November 2016 at 19:52

    Hi Scott, I don’t, but I’ll take a look when I get a chance.

  4. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    18. November 2016 at 20:56

    Scott,

    Am I missing something, or is there a link right under the video to the full podcast?

  5. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    18. November 2016 at 21:03

    Sumner, your hypocrisy is showing again. If that comment by Bannon is “racist”, then so are your comments about you thinking there are not enough Asian immigrants in America. You acafe asking judgments of “not enough” or “too many” of this or that group of people based on their race, not merit.

    The liberal mindset…

  6. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    18. November 2016 at 21:04

    Bah, autocorrect…

    “You are making judgments…”

  7. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    18. November 2016 at 23:39

    And thus was the third Party Presidential vote was way up this election. Compared to 2012, 5.1m extra people voted for Others (mainly due to the Libertarian uptick), 0.9m more voted Republican and 2.4m less voted Democrat.

    It was also the most polarised election since Senators became popularly elected: no State elected a Senator of a different Party than its vote for President, which has never happened before. Party brand mattered more than ever, yet the individual candidates of the two major Parties were the most disliked candidates ever.

    Rorty’s predictions about social changes I suspect will not play out. When you start getting memes on the right that “even our gays are prettier”, things have moved on.

    The Republican Party was stuck once The Donald won the primaries. Of all political Parties, it is the one least able to say “we had an election, but we don’t like the results, and so …” having fought a Civil War over the principle that you can’t leave just because you don’t like the way the vote turned out. (Lincoln got 39% of the popular vote, btw.)

    The deeper question is why the US was stuck with a choice between those two candidates. (And why the Democrats have done such a bang up job of turning themselves into NOT the Party of the working class.)

    And when costs are systematically imposed on discourse, it leaves the field open to those most willing to bear the costs. And they won’t be the “reasonable” folk.

    If one wanted to be really cynical, one might say that black nationalism has crippled the public life of African-American communities for decades, so now white nationalism is now getting its chance to cripple its folk. And for those folks who thought that Black Pride was just fine but White Pride was evil and could be kept in a box: guess, what, the world does not work like that. Especially when a whole line in “blame whitey” was run to galvanise an identity coalition–of course counter-identities are going to coalesce. And voting for appalling candidates because they are of your tribe is precisely how that sort of identity politics works. (The Donald as Marion Barry for white folks.)

    Mark Lilla has a hopeful piece about the longer term.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?_r=0

  8. Gravatar of RSF RSF
    19. November 2016 at 01:08

    “Wonderful, let’s tear up a nuclear deal that’s actually working.”

    Is that a really a fair assessment? Didn’t we pay them a ton of money to sign? Is there any real proof it is working?

  9. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. November 2016 at 02:27


    When two-thirds or three-quarters of the C.E.O.s in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think”

    How is that racism again? That’s just the same madness as racial quotas, gender quotas and affirmative action.

    I’ve send in the first quote with Andrew Jackson by the way. A hat tip would have been nice. Or did you find the quote without me anyhow? (I did not know that Bannon’s site is blacklisted though).

  10. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. November 2016 at 02:37


    Wonderful, let’s tear up a nuclear deal that’s actually working.

    The nuclear deal with Iran is one of the most terrible things Obama did during his whole presidency. Just be neutral for a moment: What did the US get and what did Iran get? It’s a terrible deal. And there was absolutely no reason for it.

    Not to mention the whole background: Russia and Iran are the two biggest supporters of the Assad regime. Obama sanctioned Russia (which was the right thing to do) but then at the same time Obama lifted the sanctions of Iran. What kind of message is that? I said several times that foreign policy is like NGDP targeting: You need a very clear message.

    Obama did not have a clear message during his whole Presidency except maybe:
    “Do whatever you want to do, it will have no consequences at all, I won’t do anything about it.”

    This was basically an invitation for the Russian regime, the Iranian regime, the Assad regime, the Erdogan regime and all other criminal regimes in the world.

  11. Gravatar of Murali Murali
    19. November 2016 at 02:39

    Major.Freedom: I think Scott Sumner is relying on statistics that generally say that Asian immigrants do well in the US economy, get well-paying jobs, and pay a lot in taxes. It is hard to argue on economic grounds that the US would *not* benefit from more of these immigrants. His argument is precisely about the “merits” of Asian immigrants, to the extent that merit is measured by GDP contribution.

  12. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    19. November 2016 at 06:23

    Thanks Scott.

    Lorenzo, Interesting point about the Senate.

    RSF, Iran would LOVE it if we tore up the deal. They can go back to building nukes, AND keep the billions we sent them, AND no longer face a trade embargo for Europe. France is already doing a huge natural gas deal.

    Christian, You said:

    How is that racism again?”

    It’s not racism, I never said it was. (It’s also a lie.)

    You said:

    “Do whatever you want to do, it will have no consequences at all, I won’t do anything about it.”

    He says this as Obama is fighting 5 wars around the world. How many do you and John McCain want him to fight? 20?

  13. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    19. November 2016 at 07:50

    Scott,

    Good comments, by the way. Especially good is calling the alt right fascists, which is what they are. I will always call them fascists.

  14. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. November 2016 at 08:28

    It’s only prudent to worry about the implications of importing your affluent bourgeoisie rather than developing one from your extant population. There’s nothing nefarious about Bannon’s demurral. Your attitude is the problem.

  15. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. November 2016 at 08:30

    Wonderful, let’s tear up a nuclear deal that’s actually working.

    There was no deal. The only thing it ‘works’ toward is putting the State Department’s imprimateur on Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons (to be used to destroy Israel).

  16. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. November 2016 at 10:25


    He says this as Obama is fighting 5 wars around the world. How many do you and John McCain want him to fight? 20?

    When did I talk about wars? I gave sanctions as an example. Obama was constantly sending conflicting messages, one message was negating the other. Not to mention his target.
    If you act like this the free world will become much more unstable than before and that’s exactly what happened. And of course you’ll end up in more wars, too.

    The mechanism of targeting a goal with strict credible commitments in the case of central banks can be transferred to politics and foreign policy pretty much one to one.


    It’s not racism, I never said it was.

    Since you know that I meant the statement of Bannon I assume that you agree with me now, thank you.

  17. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. November 2016 at 11:31

    “I’d hate to see your idea of a hawk.”

    -Hillary Clinton. John Bolton. Carly Fiorina. Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush. Lindsey Graham. To some extent, McMuffin, Kasich, and Pence.

  18. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. November 2016 at 11:34

    “There was no deal. The only thing it ‘works’ toward is putting the State Department’s imprimateur on Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons (to be used to destroy Israel).”

    -Art, your paranoia is getting the better of you. If Iran ever wanted nuclear weapons, it would have gotten them ages before the deal. Just like Israel did.

  19. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. November 2016 at 12:55

    If Iran ever wanted nuclear weapons, it would have gotten them ages before the deal.

    Rubbish.

  20. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    19. November 2016 at 13:40

    Great post, Lorenzo.

    Art would love the Iran deal if it were Trump’s.

  21. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. November 2016 at 13:57


    There was no deal.

    If Iran ever wanted nuclear weapons, it would have gotten them ages before the deal.

    Aren’t you guys basically agreeing without realizing it?

    I agree with Art: There was no deal. Obama gave a lot away and got nothing back in return. That’s not a deal, that’s a joke. One of the biggest laughing stocks in politics ever. The last time the world witnessed an idiocy of similar proportions was when Chamberlain waved his stupid paper.

  22. Gravatar of Goose Goose
    19. November 2016 at 17:26

    “It’s only prudent to worry about the implications of importing your affluent bourgeoisie rather than developing one from your extant population.”

    No, it’s not prudent – especially when the “facts” on which this worry is based are false.

    Nothing is stopping “natives” from majoring in comp sci and seeking out VC. That they lack the will to do so is not a policy failure.

  23. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    19. November 2016 at 17:55

    Mureli:

    “…statistics that generally say that Asian immigrants do well in the US economy, get well-paying jobs, and pay a lot in taxes. It is hard to argue on economic grounds that the US would *not* benefit from more of these immigrants. His argument is precisely about the “merits” of Asian immigrants, to the extent that merit is measured by GDP contribution.”

    Nice try, but if that same logic was applied to white people from Europe versus black people from Africa, then “the statistics” about productivity would be rejected by Sumner as racist.

    It is “safe” to be racist in favor of Asians.

  24. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    19. November 2016 at 21:49

    Flynn co-wrote a book with Michael Ledeen, one of the most crazy neocon hawks (https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222). Read this excerpt (http://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9781250106223) and tell me this is not an agenda of George W Bush, only turbocharged. No surprise, he wants to take on Iran next – he wanted to do it even before invading Iraq.

    Here are a couple of reviews of the book (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/07/19-michael-flynn-trump-isis-mccants), (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-11/michael-flynn-s-all-out-war-on-terror) They say that the book is incoherent and indulges in conspiratorial thinking. Remind you of anyone?

  25. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    19. November 2016 at 21:58

    The commentary in the US around the Iran nuclear deal is nuts. The deal is very hawkish and meagre: it only lifted multilateral sanctions – there are still extensive US sanctions, which because of US political and financial muscle and thuggish behaviour, means that everyone including Europe has to be extremely careful. For instance, there was a $9bn fine on BNP Paribas in 2014 for violating sanctions. See this economist article (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21701118-iran-says-west-not-honouring-its-side-nuclear-deal-poppycock-sanctions) for more details.

  26. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    19. November 2016 at 22:51

    My post on Flynn was somehow rejected in moderation (perhaps because I included an Amazon link to the book), so here it is again.

    Flynn co-wrote a book with Michael Ledeen, one of the most crazy neocon hawks. Here is an excerpt (http://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9781250106223): tell me this is not the GW Bush agenda, only turbocharged. Of course, he wants a war with Iran.

    Here are a couple of reviews of the book. (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/07/19-michael-flynn-trump-isis-mccants) and (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-11/michael-flynn-s-all-out-war-on-terror). They call it, among other things, “incoherent” and “conspiratorial”

  27. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    19. November 2016 at 23:17

    Here is another gem from Ledeen (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/205187/baghdad-delenda-est-part-two-jonah-goldberg)

    “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

  28. Gravatar of Steve J Steve J
    19. November 2016 at 23:20

    Agree with Anand I do not understand the comments on the Iran deal. My understanding is Europe/China/Russia were ready to lift sanctions regardless of what the US wanted. So getting the deal was about the best the US could hope for. The US sanctions are still in place – what would be the advantage to pull out of the deal?

  29. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    20. November 2016 at 07:37

    The incoherence of this is mind-boggling. Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt of the 30’s (1830’s and 1930’s)? Both were for lower tariffs, not higher. It was the Whigs and the Republicans that wanted higher tariffs.

    FDR wanted infrastructure, but Jackson was opposed to internal improvements. Jackson was also a hard money advocate who caused a six year depression by destroying our monetary system and issuing the Specie Circular, while FDR strengthened the Fed,suspended the gold standard, and confiscated gold.

    I assume Trump is closer to FDR than Jackson on both issues, but then why bring up Jackson at all? I think it’s because populism is mostly about emotion, rather than reason. It’s more about sticking it to those elites who supposedly are looking down their long noses at us, than about any particular policies.

  30. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    20. November 2016 at 07:56

    Christian, You said:

    “Since you know that I meant the statement of Bannon I assume that you agree with me now, thank you.”

    A pretty pathetic attempt to divert attention from the fact that your reading comprehension is rather poor. Of course I think he’s a racist, but not based on what you quote.

    Anand, Thanks for the links. The program will automatically reject comments that have too many links, I think the number is three or more.

  31. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    20. November 2016 at 10:50

    Like Trump’s 2nd Amendment and Hillary comment, is Sumner making a veiled reference to assassination with this passage? If so, this blog has hit new lows (hard to do, but Scott manages daily) Sumner: “And speaking of the 1930s, does Huey Long remind you of anyone? (With luck, Bannon will be kept out of economic policy.)”

  32. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. November 2016 at 10:52

    Nothing is stopping “natives” from majoring in comp sci and seeking out VC. That they lack the will to do so is not a policy failure.

    The decisions the natives make are influenced by their matrix.

    1. See Clayton Cramer about the conditions facing his contemporaries in software engineering. You get to train the H-1B’s they’ve imported ‘ere you’re let go.

    2. And, again, space in classrooms is not unlimited and financing is not unlimited. Resources devoted to schooling international students are resources not devoted to schooling natives.

    3. And, while we’re at it, if foreign governments are financing the schooling of their own (dispatching them here), it is contrary to their interest for their clients to be settling elsewhere.

  33. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. November 2016 at 14:49

    Ray, The dance of the seven veils.

  34. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    20. November 2016 at 15:58


    but not based on what you quote.

    I meant the whole quote you did of Bannon, I thought it would look odd if I would have quoted all of it again. I thought this was obvious to you. Maybe it wasn’t, my mistake.

  35. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    20. November 2016 at 16:56


    My understanding is Europe/China/Russia were ready to lift sanctions regardless of what the US wanted.

    That’s just not true. The sanctions weren’t a big issue before Obama brought them up. He wanted that deal with Iran, I as

    China an Russia have only influence on the UN sanctions anyhow and even there the core of the UN sanctions would have lasted until 2023.


    The US sanctions are still in place

    No, they are not. 90% are gone.


    – what would be the advantage to pull out of the deal?

    It’s too late now.

Leave a Reply