Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2024 m. liepos 2 d., antradienis

My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon: populism’s grand strategist

 

"I felt like I was talking with Leon Trotsky in the years before the Russian Revolution.

I was sitting in Steve Bannon’s Washington living room in 2019. His stint in Donald Trump’s White House had ended ingloriously, but he had resumed his self-appointed role as populism’s grand strategist, its propagandist, its bad-boy visionary. He sat there that day sketching out his plans for how MAGA-type movements could take over the world.

By then populists had already racked up some big wins — Brexit in Britain, Trump’s victory in 2016. Right-wing populists were in power in Hungary and Poland, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party was surging and populists were rising across Latin America. Bannon knew I opposed him in every particular and abhorred much of what he said, but he laid out his grand vision cheerfully, confidently. He didn’t seem concerned about old-fashioned conservatives, moderates and classical liberals like me; we were destined for the ash heap of history.

I decided to check in with Bannon again about a week ago. This year, populists have scored yet another string of triumphs and a second Trump victory is possible or even probable this November. I found Bannon, currently the host of the podcast “War Room,” to be embroiled and embattled as usual. He’s going to prison Monday, to begin serving a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress. If anything, he is more confident than ever.

What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for clarity and length — and to remove the F-bombs that Bannon dropped with machine gun regularity. I should emphasize that I wasn’t trying to debate Bannon or rebut his beliefs; I wanted to understand how he sees the current moment. I wanted to understand the global populist surge from the inside. What he told me now seems doubly terrifying, given Joe Biden’s performance at the first presidential debate.

DAVID BROOKS: Since we last spoke, in fact in just the past few months, there have been populist victories in the Netherlands, with Geert Wilders. We have the Chega movement doing well in Portugal, with the young especially. In Germany, the ultra-right-wing Alternative for Germany surged in last month’s European parliamentary elections. In France, Marine Le Pen’s populist party also triumphed in the European election, a result that prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call new national elections and throw the entire French political system into meltdown. In the U.K.’s forthcoming national elections, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is on pace to win seats for the first time. So if you’re a historian telling the big story of what’s happening, what would it be? What’s the core narrative here?

STEVE BANNON: Well, I think it’s very simple: that the ruling elites of the West lost confidence in themselves. The elites have lost their faith in their countries. They’ve lost faith in the Westphalian system, the nation-state. They are more and more detached from the lived experience of their people.

On our show “War Room,” I probably spend at least 20 percent of our time talking about international elements in our movement. So we’ve made Nigel a rock star, Giorgia Meloni a rock star. Marine Le Pen is a rock star. Geert is a rock star. We talk about these people all the time.

Do you see yourself in the same business that Fox News’s Roger Ailes was in, sort of right-wing journalism?

I’m not a journalist. I’m not in the media. This is a military headquarters for a populist revolt. This is how we motivate people. This show is an activist show. If you watch this show, you’re a foot soldier. We call it the Army of the Awakened.

I mean, Murdoch is a bigger enemy of ours than MSNBC. Because he’s the epitome of neoliberal neocon. And they’re the opiate of the masses. They’re the controlled opposition, right? They’re never going to want fundamental change. They’ll throw some shiny toys — Obama’s a Muslim, the kind of issues which we mock all the time.

Let’s get back to the big narrative. Do you think immigration is the core issue here? That seems to be one issue that drives populist support everywhere.

Immigration, spending — it’s the lack of confidence and self-loathing of their own civilization and their own culture. That’s the spiritual part that’s at the base. Immigration is just the manifestation of a loss of self-confidence. And it’s shocking.

I came up in the golden age of Pax Americana, a working-class dad who had a housewife and five kids. All went to Catholic schools. I mean, a guy who was a foreman and then lower-level white-collar management. That’s the kind of thing we aspire to have in this country. If you look at it country by country, it’s all the same. The lack of jobs, the lack of opportunities, the lack of self-confidence.

What we should be doing is cutting the number of foreign students in American universities by 50 percent immediately, because we’re never going to get a Hispanic and Black population in Silicon Valley unless you get them into the engineering schools. No. 2, we should staple an exit visa to their diploma. The foreign students can hang around for a week and party, but then they got to go home and make their own country great.

Our movement is metastasizing to something that’s different than America First; it’s American Citizens First.

What does that mean?

It means Americans have to get a better deal. Right now, the American citizen has all the obligations of serving in the military, of paying taxes, of going through this grind that is American late-stage technofeudal capitalism. But tell me what the bonus is.

Like everybody, I’ve been trying to figure out why populism is having this broad resurgence. My story may be a little different from yours. My quick story is that 20 percent of Americans go to nice colleges and get professional-type jobs. They marry each other. They move into cities like Washington, Denver, Austin, San Francisco. They invest in their kids, who get into the same colleges, who then get good jobs. The people who are not in this hereditary educated elite conclude that it has too much cultural power, media power and now financial power, so much of the rest of the country says: Enough is enough.

Well, they have power. But we’re going to win. We’re ascendant in Europe. We’re ascendant here. We’ve had no money. We’re not organized. It’s self-organizing. But our enemies — and they are enemies — continue to overplay their hand, and so we continue to rise.

After the financial crisis I thought it would be a great time to be a leftist. You’ve got a financial crisis caused by irresponsible capitalism, wages are stagnant, inequality is rising. Heck, even I almost turned into a Marxist. But somehow this has been a better era for the populist right than the populist left.

You’re seeing America First Democrats. Look at John Fetterman. Fetterman and Steve Bannon are closer in their economics than Steve Bannon and the Republican establishment. The left didn’t have what it took because of the cultural issues and the issues of race, all that madness that they’re embedded in. They had to have open borders. They had to have D.E.I.

The historical left is in full meltdown. They always focus on noise, never on signal. They don’t understand that the MAGA movement, as it gets momentum and builds, is moving much farther to the right than President Trump. They will look back fondly at Donald Trump. They’ll ask: Where’s Trump when we need him?

You said something I’ve got to ask you about, that Trump’s a moderate. In what areas is the MAGA movement farther right than Trump?

I think farther right on radical cuts of spending, No. 1. I think we’re much more hard-core on things like Ukraine. President Trump is a peacemaker. He wants to go in and negotiate and figure something out as a deal maker. I think 75 percent of our movement would want an immediate, total shutdown — not one more penny in Ukraine, and massive investigations about where the money went. On the southern border and mass deportations, I don’t think President Trump’s close to where we are. They all got to go home.

Also, on artificial intelligence, we’re virulently anti-A.I. I think big regulations have to come.

President Trump is a kindhearted person. He’s a people person, right? On China, I think he admires Xi Jinping. But we’re super-hawks. We want to see an elimination of the Chinese Communist Party.

What do you think a second Trump administration would look like in the first few weeks? Months?

Project 2025 and others are working on it — to immediately focus on immigration, the forever wars and on the fiscal and the financial. And simultaneously the deconstruction of the administrative state, and going after the complete, total destruction of the deep state.

In the first 100 days — this is going to be different than ’16 — we will have 3,000 political appointees ready to go.

Have those people been selected and trained? When Trump came in, in ’17, you guys had a lot of the Republican holdovers —

We had nothing. You have five or six groups that are building up subject matter expertise, laying out position papers. They’re vetting people right now.

So you’re going to go to war with the existing administrative state and the Praetorian Guard deep state. My point is, let’s, in the transition, get all the federal contracts. Close them all down. Let’s get MAGA in there. Right. Let’s get our guys in on the contracts. It’ll be a hostile takeover of the apparatus.

Who’s the inner circle? Who is the chief of staff?

I think you’re going to have somebody that knows what’s going on. Guys like Dr. Kevin Roberts and others. Also, I strongly believe that right after The Associated Press calls the election that Jerome Powell will tender his resignation. And so you’ll pick a new Federal Reserve chief. And you’ll pick a Treasury secretary and attorney general.

Would you like to have some role?

No, no, no, no. We run this like a military command post. So I would only be giving up power. I went there before. I wanted out. I’m not a staff guy. I can’t do it. And also that’s not where the center of power is. It’s not how President Trump thinks. A big center of power is just media.

I call Trump a Marshall McLuhanesque figure. McLuhan called it, right? He says this mass thing called media, or what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said of the noosphere, is going to so overwhelm evolutionary biology that it will be everything. And Trump understands that. That’s why he watches TV.

He understands that to get anything done, you have to make the people understand. And so therefore, constantly, we’re in a battle of narrative. Unrestricted narrative warfare. Everything is narrative. And in that regard, you have to make sure you forget about the noise and focus on the signal.

And remember, our audience is virtually all activists. So even though it may not be the biggest, it doesn’t have to be. It’s the people that are out there in the hinterland that are on the school boards. They now control so many state parties. Our mantra is you must use your agency. It’s a spiritual war. The divine providence works through your agency.

I remember a precinct captain strategy: You called on people to get active on that level to monitor elections and gain control of the G.O.P. from the ground up.

The Republican Party is structured as basically a grass-roots party. But they’ve never filled the precincts. And that’s where we fill them, just with our guys. That’s how we control all these political parties, from Utah to Arizona to Georgia. Governor Brian Kemp doesn’t control that. It’s all controlled by the grass roots.

The Republican establishment never was interested?

No, hated it. Not just not interested. The Republican establishment is all guys in blue blazers and khakis going to the club. These are the unclubbable people.

And think about what this movement did. It did three things that have never been done before, with no money. It removed a sitting speaker of the House for the first time in history. It removed the minority leader, who I would argue is the most powerful Republican you’ve had in 50 years, Mitch McConnell. And then we removed the entire R.N.C. Think about it. Ronna McDaniel and all her people.

These guys are never going home unless you beat them.

Victory begets victory.

Do you know the demographics of these activists? Education? Race? Income?

First off, I would say 60 percent female. Female and over 40 years old. A lot of that, a third of them brought in by the pandemic, and the Moms for America. A ton of moms, women who didn’t read a lot of books in college. They’re not politically active. They had no interest. It was only later in life, as they became the C.O.O. of the American family, they realized how tough it was to make ends meet.

And then they saw the lack of education, and it was really the pandemic when they walked by the computer and saw what the kids are doing. They’re now at the tip of the spear.

Do you worry that your broader movement will be fatally poisoned by antisemitic elements, the conspiracy crazies?

We’re the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish group out there. What I say is that not just the future of Israel but the future of American Jews, not just safety but their ability to thrive and prosper as they have in this country, is conditional upon one thing, and that’s a hard weld with Christian nationalism.

If I can make one comparison: Early in my career, I worked for Bill Buckley. His manner at National Review reminds me a little of some of the things you do. He created an intense sense of belonging: We’re the conservative movement. We’re all in this together. Every day we’re marching forward. But he also had a strong sense of who was a wack job, a conspiracist. And he was going to draw a line. Pat Buchanan was on the other side of the line.

So what I admire about Buckley is obviously the intense thing of belonging. What I don’t admire is the no fight. It’s very much an intellectual debating society, right?

I use you and George Will as examples of this all the time. Brilliant guys, but this is a street fight. We need to be street fighters. This is going to be determined on social media and getting people out to vote. It’s not going to be debated on the Upper East Side or Upper West Side.

I’ve found that most people are pretty reasonable. You can have a conversation, and you’ll at least see where they’re coming from.

I think you’re dead [expletive] wrong.

That’s where we disagree.

No, it’s 100 percent disagree. What are you talking about? They think you’re an exotic animal. You’re a conservative, but you’re not dangerous. You’re reasonable. We’re not reasonable. We’re unreasonable because we’re fighting for a republic. And we’re never going to be reasonable until we get what we achieve. We’re not looking to compromise. We’re looking to win.

Now, the biggest element that Buckley had that the book “Bowling Alone” had, and you talk about, is the atomization of our society. There’s no civic bonding. There’s no national cohesion. There’s not even the Lions Club things that you used to have before. People tell me all the time: “You changed my life. I ran for the board of supervisors, and now I’m on the board of supervisors.” They have friends that they never had met before, and they’re in a common cause, and it’s changed their life. They’re on social media. Every day, they have action they have to do.

This was Hannah Arendt’s point that loneliness is a seedbed for authoritarianism. But you’re not about conversing with the other side, you’re just fighting with the other side.

What do you mean, not conversing with? There’s nothing to talk about.

Well, how about you have a conversation with the Biden administration. The Biden administration has spent a lot of money. And now, when I go to Central Ohio, they’ve got an Intel plant coming in. You go to Upstate New York, they’ve got a Micron plant. These are benefits for the working class.

Some of that stuff’s OK. But on the fundamental direction of the country, we are separate. We are two different worldviews. And those worldviews can’t be bridged.

That’s not the way George Washington communicated. It’s certainly not the way Abraham Lincoln communicated. I mean, I know that’s cliché, but go to the second inaugural. Slavery is not a North or South problem; it’s an American problem. He was emphasizing national unity.

Hang on, hang on, hang on. After he had burnt — good god, man, I can’t believe you used that example. After he burned the South to the ground —

They declared war.

In fact, let’s go back to the speech. He actually leads, what led up to it, and then that powerful phrase, “the war came.” Basically, we tried to compromise. “The war came.” Columbia, Atlanta. I burned it to the ground. The inherent powers of the Constitution. He was a military dictator because he had to be, right?

Don’t sit there and say, Oh, that’s all happy-talk language at the end. Remember, in war, take the moral high ground, totally and completely destroy your opponent.

What does that mean, though? If they have 50 percent of the country, then they have 50 percent of the Congress.

Well, let’s say this. We win, we pick up five or six seats — we have 55 seats in the Senate. We pick up five or six seats in the House, and we have the executive branch. And this time, we have much more savvy and understanding.

What does the Justice Department look like? What kinds of changes would Trump make?

I think they’ll hit it with a blowtorch.

When did you come to see the world this way? I mean, obviously, you were at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs. Did you have a front-row seat and think, “Oh, this sucks”?

I took Michael Porter’s classes at Harvard back in the ’80s, and globalization was — Harvard, at that time, treated this as the second law of thermodynamics. It was a natural property that could not be questioned. And then I went to the M. & A. department at Goldman Sachs and I worked with Hank Paulson. I was put on a lot of things to sell companies. You could just see America was being gutted. You had Mike Milken and the junk bond guys, and they were after these companies. And you go out there, and the companies were not particularly well run.

The guys were always going to the country club, and the management was very detached from labor — you see this evisceration, you saw these jobs going, and they were never coming back.

And then I read Christopher Lasch. I was just doing my thing, had my own finance firm. And then 9/11 happens. And everybody’s down singing “God Bless America.” And I said, “I wonder how long this ‘God Bless America’ phase is going to go.” I was adamantly opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan. And one of the things that got me the most was I couldn’t believe that George W. Bush didn’t have his daughters go into the military. How do you do this? I remember reading guys saying we could have much better recruiting if we had those two as symbols.

We’re so removed from that kind of Middle America. And my daughter then went to West Point. And when I went up to West Point, when she was there, I was blown away by how working-class West Point was — the students. This is the heart of the country. And these kids are going right into this war.

But then, it was 2008 when the collapse hit. I mean, for my dad, AT&T stock was right next to the Catholic Church. In fact, it would be like having shares in the Catholic Church. And when Jim Cramer came on that day and said, If you need cash in the next five years, you got to dump. This thing’s over. And when my dad notified me a couple of days later he had dumped his AT&T stock, I go, wow.

I said, this is a guy. He has been a systems player the entire time, right? Telephone company, 50 years, the little guy. You can work your whole life and get [expletive] by this. And who’s responsible?

We have a capitalist economy that has no capitalists, right? It has hypercapitalists or state capitalism. You’ve got to not just reallocate income, you have to reallocate assets. People have to have a stake in this. That’s all they’re asking for.

The MAGA movement controls the Republican Party and backs President Trump. So yes, Trump is a revolution — remember, General Washington, the revolution and the foundation, and then Lincoln, the birth of the new America. And he’s the most nationalist guy we’ve ever had. Remember, fighting the Civil War, as a warlord, to make sure that we were a nation. Remember, he’s a nationalist.

I hate to say this, but Trump’s the third. Trump is taking America back to its more constitutional Republic for the third time, and that drives the credentialed left nuts because he’s not just a class traitor, he’s a low-end guy from Queens. He’s not up to their social — it’s too tacky. It’s the gold. It’s the Trump stuff. They hate him. They hate him to a passionate level. They look at the noise around Trump and miss the signal of what’s really happening, and they can’t get past that, and they’re blinded by it.

Finally, I’ve got to ask you about what’s about to happen to you — going to prison.

I spent my 20s on a Navy ship. If I have to spend my 70s in a prison, I’m still fighting. This show will be bigger. My message will be stronger.

You’re not concerned?

No. I’ll get the message out and fight for this. History is a process. I’m kind of honored, in one way, that they hate me so much they feel they have to put Bannon away. Their thing is that, if we put Bannon in prison or get him away from his microphone, that’ll help us win. It will be the exact opposite.

Every day is a fight. People in this movement, when they talk to me, they say they have a purpose. Once they have a purpose, you can’t stop this movement. We’re not going to win everything. Just like in Europe, you’re going to have defeats. Some days are going to be cloudy. But the sunlit uplands are in front of you. Just keep your head down and keep grinding." [1]

1. My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon. Brooks, David.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Jul 1, 2024.

 


General tips and resources from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: How to navigate legal danger

 "Taking risks is inherent in investigative journalism. But there are important steps at each phase of the reporting process that you can take to help lower your legal risk and strengthen your stories.

While you'll always want to consult an attorney for specific legal advice related to your newsgathering or reporting, it's important to have some baseline knowledge about ways to avoid certain legal headaches before you take on the next assignment.

Newsgathering

Newsgathering, of course, is the crux of an investigative journalist's job - and to protect yourself from civil or criminal liability, you should avoid breaking the law while you interview sources and collect information. Here are some important things to keep in mind during the newsgathering process:

* You cannot enter private property without consent or refuse to leave once asked. Trespassing can subject a journalist to being sued for damages or criminally prosecuted. Law enforcement has increasingly weaponized trespass threats, so be aware of your surroundings at all times.

* Avoid misrepresenting yourself when approaching sources for information. Investigative journalism often involves contacting people who may be hesitant to speak to a journalist. Nonetheless, pretending not to be a j ournalist to get sources to talk with you is a bad idea. Not only could it land you in legal trouble - as you run the risk of being charged with fraud - but it's also an ethical no-no.

* Follow your state's recording laws: 38 states and Washington, D.C., allow recording with one party's consent, and roughly a dozen states require that all parties consent before a conversation is recorded. Regardless of the state-specific law, however, it is a best practice to get consent on tape at the outset of a conversation.

While it is generally OK for a journalist to film in public places, the potential for liability exists if you capture video that violates a recording law, if you take photos or videos that violate hidden camera laws, or if you take photos or videos of certain federal facilities.

More information and state-specific resources can be found in the Reporters Committee's "Reporter's Recording Guide."

* What if you obtain a recording illegally made by someone else? In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v. Vopper that publication of such a recording is protected under the First Amendment if (1.) the journalist was not involved in unlawful activity, (2.) it's truthful and (3.) it's a matter of public concern.

* Some jurisdictions have recognized a First Amendment right to film police activities in public (subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions). It is best to wear your press ID prominently when newsgathering in areas with police presence, like a protest. A journalist should generally record from a safe distance and comply with police orders; however, police are not allowed to target journalists who are legally compliant while reporting, for instance, by searching or seizing your phone.

For more information about reporters' rights at protests, consult the Reporters Committee's "Police, Protesters and the Press."

Pre-publication vetting

Vetting your investigative stories before publishing them can significantly reduce legal risk. Understanding the basics of what can trigger liability is an invaluable skill. Crucially, vetting can help journalists and news organizations avoid libel lawsuits.

* Assess the risks of statements you make in your reporting: Are they assertions of fact or protected opinion? While only assertions of fact can give rise to a libel claim, opinions that imply false and defamatory facts could support such a claim, as the Supreme Court held in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company. Even when stating an opinion, make it clear it's an opinion, and include all relevant facts on which you're basing your opinion.

* Identify potential persons who may be valid plaintiffs in a libel suit: This includes any person identified directly or indirectly, specific government officials, corporations, or members of a small group (generally under 2.5 people) if "all" or "most" of the members are implicated. Then, you should assess the probability that these persons or groups may sue: Are they public officials or public figures (politicians, celebrities, etc.)? If so, the risk is likely lower, as they need to prove a higher standard of fault - "actual malice" - that the journalist published the statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard" of the truth. If the subject is a private figure, depending on state law, the subject usually only has to show that the journalist made a false statement that injured their reputation with negligence - a lower standard. For more on actual malice, check out the Reporters Committee's explainer on the legal standard, "Everything you need to know about "actual malice.'"

* Wherever you can, include links or citations to the source of your information. Limit your use of confidential sources when possible. Every journalist, of course, wants to protect their sources and the identities of those who were promised confidentiality - but note that in observing this responsibility, you may open yourself up to further risk of losing a libel suit because if you need the source to testify on your behalf, they won't be able to. There may also be circumstances where you are compelled to reveal the source's identity in court, which places a journalist in a legal and ethically difficult situation. More information on journalists' right not to be compelled to reveal sources or reporting materials in court can be found in the Reporters Committee's "Reporter's Privilege Compendium."

* Seek comment from the subjects of a story wherever possible, especially if you are publishing something high-risk about a particularly litigious individual. This ensures you cover your bases and can be used for defense in a potential libel lawsuit. Even if the subject does not respond or says, "no comment," include that in the published piece as their response to your efforts. Ensure you give someone adequate time to respond to a request for comment. This is especially true for investigative journalists who often spend weeks or months digging into stories. Try to reach the subject in multiple ways, multiple times (such as a combination of phone calls and emails). Going to adequate lengths for comment demonstrates your due diligence.

Fair and accurate reporting on official public documents and proceedings is protected by the fair report privilege, the scope of which is dependent on state law. When using information from such documents, it's important to properly attribute the source in your story to trigger the fair report privilege.

Beyond libel actions, journalists can face other privacy lawsuits by being accused of intrusion, publication of a private fact, false light, and misappropriation of likeness. More information on these issues and other First Amendment basics can be found in the Reporters Committee's "First Amendment Handbook."

Reporters Committee attorneys provide pre-publication review services through our partnerships with Freelance Investigative Reporters and Editors (FIRE), the International Documentary Association, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and on a case-by-case basis. We can also refer journalists with prepublication needs to pro bono outside counsel through our ProJourn program.

To understand more about vetting and minimizing your risk, consult the Reporters Committee's "Pre-Publication Review Guide."

You're facing legal action. Now what?

So you've taken all the necessary steps and precautions to mitigate your risk while reporting, but you still find yourself on the other end of a lawsuit or a subpoena. Here's what to do and where to go for help.

* If you receive a subpoena or are served with a lawsuit, immediately inform your attorney if you or your organization has one. Then, if you have insurance, notify the insurer.

* If you don't have access to counsel, call the Reporters Committee's free Legal Hotline at 1-800-336-4243 or submit an inquiry online. The Hotline is available to journalists 24/7 if you have questions or need help finding a lawyer. "A journalist's guide to using RCFP's Legal Hotline" offers more guidance on when to contact the Hotline and what to expect when you do.

* If you are under threat of arrest, immediately identify yourself as press. Do not unlock your phone in the presence of police (beforehand, turn off touch and facial ID; instead have a numerical passcode on your phone). You do not need to consent if the police ask for your equipment or property without a warrant. Know your Miranda rights by heart (they should tell you prior to official questioning, but they still might not). Ask for a lawyer and then remain silent. When given a phone call, call your primary contact who is the most likely to answer. Know that they can only hold you for a limited time without a formal charge.

The Reporters Committee has many additional resources on our website, including more reporting resources and legal guides to help journalists understand their rights. Remember that these resources do not replace the advice of an attorney when faced with specific legal action - so, as always, contact your attorney or attempt to retain an attorney as soon as possible.

All of the information and resources referenced here can be found at rcfp.org/resources." [1]

1. How to navigate legal danger. Singh, Gunita; Galiba, Mayeesha.  Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. The IRE Journal; Columbia Vol. 46, Iss. 4,  (Fourth Quarter 2023): 34-36.