I haven't watched the Bannon 60 Minutes interview, but I reckon
Slate's William Saletan has got his measure:
Bannon fancies himself a teacher of history, policy, and strategy. But
what he really teaches, by example, is the psychology of the fascist
intellectual.
The term “fascism” is thrown around too casually by the left, as
“socialism” is by the right. But fascism has a genuine meaning based on
past cases, and you can see its themes in Bannon’s interview. Fascism’s
core idea is allegiance to a leader in the name of national greatness.
What distinguishes fascism from republicanism is how he responds to
conflicts between the leader and countervailing principles or
institutions. A republican welcomes such conflicts as ways to challenge
and check the power of the executive. A fascist, perceiving these
conflicts as obstacles to national unity, seeks to obliterate them and
to consolidate power.
Bannon takes the latter approach.
Also at Slate, I reckon Jamelle Bouie is also right:
Steve Bannon’s Intellectual Reputation Is a Charade
His erudite-sounding arguments ignore facts and revise history to coincide with his nationalist worldview.
2 comments:
would a person with an intellect be part of Breitbart for petes sake
Does it matter? The vast majority of academics/intellectuals, in the humanities anyway, lean pretty far to the left. And granted, Bannon *did* have a lot of influence *once* - when he was actually work with Trump. But now? He's gone from a wannabee to a has been.
Post a Comment