What or who exactly is Mr Bannon? As he described it, he ran a little website. Oh, he is a street fighter. He wants to return America to the policies of 1840? And his take on immigrants - they have done nothing for the US. Nothing.
He sees not the 20th century but the 19th century as the century to look to. He mentioned Henry Clay - the great compromiser. I actually like that, we could use some of that. Clay is also the author of the American Plan - High Tariffs limiting competition from abroad, a strong central bank, and large investments on infrastructure. Aside from the tariffs, the other two sound reasonable, palatable. That is my quick take on Henry Clay. It does not sound at all like Mr Bannon. My initial impression of this history lesson is that it unthoughtful and mainly a smoke screen. It is certainly not what Breitbart is about.
The interview continues and Mr Bannon is certainly angry that Clinton, Bush, and Obama allowed China into the WTO. This is what Breitbart is about. These administrations facilitated NAFTA, and world trade in general. And keep in mind that immigration jumped during these administrations. Trade and immigration are their cardinal sins as per Breitbart. And the deep state? The Deep State is the state, the government agencies and people that implemented and perpetuates those policies. The 19th century comes into focus here. Limited immigration, especially pre-Civil War, (though the Irish were starting to arrive even then!), and a very controlled and regulated trade policy.
And then he could not say anything against his man in the White House. He knows, I guess that his man is the only man he has a chance with. He still sticks to the story that there is no Russian conspiracy or collusion. Though in online "Overtime" he did say that firing Comey was the biggest mistake in recent political history. In the network / tv interview he says several times that either you are with him or not. He is still all in regarding his support of this President, even though he is not there anymore. On these matters during the TV interview he was sending a message to one man.
His acknowledgment that his man is focused on personalities versus institutions was interesting. He says that is changing. We will see. His man did do that deal with the Democrats. His speech in MO and his comments regarding Claire McCaskill could have been another case of that turn. We will see on that one. Considering how he is man attacks the judiciary and urges that the Senate just go nuclear, and the way in which he pardoned Sheriff Joe, etc. . . I do not think he understands the institutions that make up the US Government sufficiently to function in that way. It simply is all personalities for him.
Bannon claimed in another interview in 2016 that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt Right. What he was and is offering in Breitbart, courtesy of his vision of American history, is a sanitized presentable version of what the Alt Right is largely after. He dreams of something that what Breitbart offers could consume the Republican Party. It is the the return of something, he wants to argue, that the Republican Party once was. Mr Bannon, though, is not a Whig and this is not 1840.
He sees not the 20th century but the 19th century as the century to look to. He mentioned Henry Clay - the great compromiser. I actually like that, we could use some of that. Clay is also the author of the American Plan - High Tariffs limiting competition from abroad, a strong central bank, and large investments on infrastructure. Aside from the tariffs, the other two sound reasonable, palatable. That is my quick take on Henry Clay. It does not sound at all like Mr Bannon. My initial impression of this history lesson is that it unthoughtful and mainly a smoke screen. It is certainly not what Breitbart is about.
The interview continues and Mr Bannon is certainly angry that Clinton, Bush, and Obama allowed China into the WTO. This is what Breitbart is about. These administrations facilitated NAFTA, and world trade in general. And keep in mind that immigration jumped during these administrations. Trade and immigration are their cardinal sins as per Breitbart. And the deep state? The Deep State is the state, the government agencies and people that implemented and perpetuates those policies. The 19th century comes into focus here. Limited immigration, especially pre-Civil War, (though the Irish were starting to arrive even then!), and a very controlled and regulated trade policy.
And then he could not say anything against his man in the White House. He knows, I guess that his man is the only man he has a chance with. He still sticks to the story that there is no Russian conspiracy or collusion. Though in online "Overtime" he did say that firing Comey was the biggest mistake in recent political history. In the network / tv interview he says several times that either you are with him or not. He is still all in regarding his support of this President, even though he is not there anymore. On these matters during the TV interview he was sending a message to one man.
His acknowledgment that his man is focused on personalities versus institutions was interesting. He says that is changing. We will see. His man did do that deal with the Democrats. His speech in MO and his comments regarding Claire McCaskill could have been another case of that turn. We will see on that one. Considering how he is man attacks the judiciary and urges that the Senate just go nuclear, and the way in which he pardoned Sheriff Joe, etc. . . I do not think he understands the institutions that make up the US Government sufficiently to function in that way. It simply is all personalities for him.
Bannon claimed in another interview in 2016 that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt Right. What he was and is offering in Breitbart, courtesy of his vision of American history, is a sanitized presentable version of what the Alt Right is largely after. He dreams of something that what Breitbart offers could consume the Republican Party. It is the the return of something, he wants to argue, that the Republican Party once was. Mr Bannon, though, is not a Whig and this is not 1840.
