The Banishment of Steve Bannon: A Political Post-Mortem

In his New Yorker commentary, Jelani Cobb explores the departure of Steve Bannon, the former senior advisor to Donald Trump, analyzing the implications of this exit for the administration and the broader landscape of American populism.

The Failure of Discovery and Partnership

Cobb contrasts Bannon with historical political strategists like Karl Rove or David Axelrod, who were known for their "talent for knowing what to do with talent." Unlike those who identified and cultivated leaders, Bannon joined the Trump campaign as a CEO after the nomination was secured. He did not "discover" Trump; rather, he "perceived the billionaire reality show host's talents" and navigated him through the final phases of a campaign that few expected to succeed. However, this partnership was doomed by internal friction with figures like H.R. McMaster and Jared Kushner, and Bannon’s grandiose, divisive goal of achieving the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

The Charlottesville Catalyst and Public Contradictions

The tipping point arrived following the "terrible events in Charlottesville." Bannon’s subsequent interview with The American Prospect revealed a man attempting to distance himself from the very elements he previously courted. While he dismissed the right-wing contingents in Charlottesville as "clowns," this attempt at "public hand-washing" rang hollow. As Cobb notes, the irony was palpable: "The aide, who called them clowns, was going, but the president, who said that their ranks included many fine people, stayed."

Bannonism and Economic Nationalism

Bannon’s brand of politics—a "truculent blend of nationalism and racial grievance" labeled by some as "Bannonism"—was often viewed as the intellectual ballast for Trump’s presidency. In his exit, Bannon attempted to reframe his agenda as "economic nationalism," expressing an overriding fear that China would "supplant the United States as the leader of the global economy." Yet, Cobb argues that the electorate Bannon tapped into was not driven solely by "economic anxiety." Instead, Bannon’s influence was rooted in the same "paranoid conspiracy theories and racial resentments" that have characterized American populism since the era of Tom Watson.

Life After the White House: Theater or Threat?

Upon returning to Breitbart News, Bannon declared, "I’ve got my hands back on my weapons" and dubbed himself "Bannon the barbarian." While Breitbart attempted to capitalize on this with merchandising like "fidget spinners featuring Bannon's face," Cobb suggests this is "mostly theater." The global populist wave that Breitbart hoped to ride has shown signs of fading, following electoral defeats in Europe.

Furthermore, Bannon’s influence from the outside is constrained by the realities of governance. While he remains a disruptive force—exemplified by Breitbart attacking Trump’s Afghanistan policy—Trump himself proved at a Phoenix rally that he could maintain his populist fervor without Bannon’s direct assistance. As the crowd roared, it was clear that the "disgruntlements" Bannon helped cultivate remained potent, even in his absence. Ultimately, Bannon’s departure leaves the administration to reconcile its future, raising the question of who will now lead the movement and where the "cyclonic winds" of this particular brand of nationalism will ultimately land.