03-10-2017, 05:11 PM
Listen, I'll readily admit that Steve Bannon worries me far more than Trump does. I prefer not to have any ideologue sitting at the right hand of the president. I admit, as well, some discomfort that Neil Howe lent his participation to Bannon's patently slanted documentary Generation Zero, to which I took issue--even umbrage--at a number of his suppositions. (More on that later.)
Okay, so Steve Bannon has made some speeches, and has read more than a few books. I get the concern, and attention must be paid, I'll grant you that. But the key question for me boils down to this: Is there more than "six degrees of separation" between Bannon the provocateur and Bannon the president's chief political strategist? Because if there is, maybe we need to dial down the volume just a bit. (I have, though I remain watchful, to the extent that that's possible for an ordinary citizen.)
How will we know if Steve Bannon--and by logical extension, Trump--is using any text as a "playbook" for domestic and foreign policy? Was Bannon's recent language about establishing a "new political order" lifted right out of The Fourth Turning? Is that alone sufficient evidence on its face to accuse Bannon of orchestrating a self-fulfilling prophecy with Trump's tacit approval? (Some us may recall that George H.W. Bush spoke of a "new world order," which some Americans immediately interpreted in strictly conspiratorial terms.)
Wouldn't it be glaringly obvious if our president was using any radical text--Mein Kampf, included--to hoodwink the American public, and bring about some dystopian vision? Does totalitarianism come that easily to a mature democracy? Or will it come creeping in on "little cat's feet" in a guise--and for a purpose--with which we are comfortably familiar? Some astute observer speculated that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be a fascism created to fight another fascism (say, Islamofascism). That I can buy, especially if our "fascism" is in response to a terrorist attack that makes 9-11 pale by comparison. One pundit has even ventured so far as to say that we are one such attack away from the end of the "open society" as we know it. Perish the thought. That event might coincide with some kind of authoritarianism--benign or otherwise.
It's not going to be so easy as suddenly slipping a "black hood" over our heads and carrying us off to...whatever. There will be more to go by--something other than old speeches and a controversial reading list--to alert us that liberal democracy is about to meet its demise.
Okay, so Steve Bannon has made some speeches, and has read more than a few books. I get the concern, and attention must be paid, I'll grant you that. But the key question for me boils down to this: Is there more than "six degrees of separation" between Bannon the provocateur and Bannon the president's chief political strategist? Because if there is, maybe we need to dial down the volume just a bit. (I have, though I remain watchful, to the extent that that's possible for an ordinary citizen.)
How will we know if Steve Bannon--and by logical extension, Trump--is using any text as a "playbook" for domestic and foreign policy? Was Bannon's recent language about establishing a "new political order" lifted right out of The Fourth Turning? Is that alone sufficient evidence on its face to accuse Bannon of orchestrating a self-fulfilling prophecy with Trump's tacit approval? (Some us may recall that George H.W. Bush spoke of a "new world order," which some Americans immediately interpreted in strictly conspiratorial terms.)
Wouldn't it be glaringly obvious if our president was using any radical text--Mein Kampf, included--to hoodwink the American public, and bring about some dystopian vision? Does totalitarianism come that easily to a mature democracy? Or will it come creeping in on "little cat's feet" in a guise--and for a purpose--with which we are comfortably familiar? Some astute observer speculated that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be a fascism created to fight another fascism (say, Islamofascism). That I can buy, especially if our "fascism" is in response to a terrorist attack that makes 9-11 pale by comparison. One pundit has even ventured so far as to say that we are one such attack away from the end of the "open society" as we know it. Perish the thought. That event might coincide with some kind of authoritarianism--benign or otherwise.
It's not going to be so easy as suddenly slipping a "black hood" over our heads and carrying us off to...whatever. There will be more to go by--something other than old speeches and a controversial reading list--to alert us that liberal democracy is about to meet its demise.