Bannon has learned he was not indispensable

Most US administrations have had an aide who deemed himself crucial to the president. Steve Bannon was Donald Trump’s, until he had his wings clipped says Elizabeth Drew

Bannon has learned he was not indispensable

IN many, if not most US administrations, some person convinces the press that the US president couldn’t function without him (it’s yet to be a her).

The indispensable aide is one of the most well-worn tropes of the modern presidency. Karl Rove was ‘Bush’s brain’; Harry Hopkins held Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s prolific White House team together; Bill Moyers appeared on a magazine cover as ‘Johnson’s Good Angel.’ Without such a figure, or so the story goes, the administration would be a mess.

The trope is invented or encouraged by the ‘indispensable’ aide. Journalists usually fall for the story, regardless of its credibility: It clarifies everything, and it gives them something to write about.

The indispensable aide is only too happy to reveal some dramatic story about how he saved the day, devised some ingenious idea, or prevented some terrible mistake.

But the soi-disant crucial aide inevitably oversteps. In the Reagan White House, Don Regan, who succeeded James Baker as chief of staff, fancied himself the prime minister: He inserted himself into photos of Reagan with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was rude to lesser beings (including reporters), and made the fatal mistake of hanging up on Nancy Reagan, who was dedicated to looking after her Ronny. Regan was soon out.

Presidents aren’t fond of reading how some super-smart aide saved their bacon. All presidents have healthy egos — if others are so smart, why aren’t they president? The wise president-elect identifies a peacock and avoids the species from the start, or knows how to keep its feathers in check.

Barack Obama was plenty pleased with himself, with good reason, but such was his dignity that no super-aide emerged during his presidency. It didn’t occurto his advisers to try to outshine him.

Stephen Bannon wasn’t particularly wise as a White House aide — he couldn’t contain his inner peacock — and Donald Trump’s ego is particularly fragile. Both are, or were, misfits in their roles. Trump had spent his business life surrounded by family and flunkies — no stockholders or vice-chairmen with their own ambitions. The two men were a mismatch made in White House hell.

As a candidate, Trump went with his instincts, and his instinct in the 2016 presidential race was that blue-collar workers, and others who feared for their economic future, needed their own victims, be they Mexican immigrants or billionaire bankers.

A wall — phantasmagorical or not — would keep out the “bad people” Mexico was “sending us”. As it happened, of all the people around Trump, Bannon most matched these views.

A person like Bannon — who presents as learned and confirms one’s own brilliance — is a person one wants to have close by.

Trump is a ‘whatever works’ kind of guy. Once he was elected, he brought in billionaires to populate his cabinet, and has gotten away with telling his supporters that really rich people are needed to run the country. Bannon wrapped himself in what might be loosely termed a philosophy, which consisted of a nihilistic anger toward any ‘establishment’.

But his was faux populism: While, politically, Bannon championed blue-collar workers, he lived on the millions he had attained from a stint at Goldman Sachs and through a fortunate investment in the TV comedy, Seinfeld.

He also flourished with backing from the billionaire Mercer family. The Mercers, who made their fortune through the hi-tech genius of patriarchRobert Mercer and a hedge fund he

led, fund Breitbart News, a far-right website formerly edited by Bannon that promotes ultra-nationalism and white supremacy, with a whiff of anti-Semitism.

Bannon’s ostensibly radical views were dressed up in a fancy set of principles, embroidered with name drops of far-out thinkers. On trade and immigration, for example, Bannon’s

acquired philosophy aligned with Trump’s political opportunism. (Trump’s more liberal, often Democrat-backing former self is another story.)

It was a mistake to see Bannon as Pygmalion to Trump’s Galatea, or, as some did, as the Trump White House’s Rasputin. Bannon reinforced the nationalist inclination that led Trump to overrule his daughter, Ivanka, and his economic advisers by withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.

And Bannon intruded on foreign policy by getting himself put on the US National Security Council, until two of the generals in Trump’s administration — namely national security adviser HR McMaster and John Kelly (now the chief of staff) — got him removed. (Bannon was believed to be behind the recent push to force out McMaster, mainly by suggesting he’s ‘anti-Israel.’)

But Bannon’s role as genius-without-portfolio — in which Trump indulged him, until Kelly arrived and clarified chains of command — was his undoing.

Without any defined responsibilities, he intruded where he wished, and ended up with enemies.

He had time to fight internal battles by feeding reporters stories about his White House rivals, though he would switch someone (for example, former chief of staff, Reince Priebus) from rival to friend, as convenient.

Bannon was a troublemaker as much as a policymaker, and the two roles didn’t mesh. Trump also began to see Bannon as a ‘leaker’.

And Trump’s White House is all too leaky: Many who work there let reporters know that they have, at best, mixed feelings about working for Trump, but believe it the better part of valour to stay and protect the country from his leadership.

Bannon’s braggadocio took him to the most dangerous terrain on which to confront Trump: The president’s obsession with his election victory.

The ambiguity of winning the electoral college vote (not, as he has falsely claimed, by the greatest margin since Reagan), but losing the popular vote by nearly 3m votes, dogs Trump.

That’s why he invented millions of ‘illegal’ voters and had maps printed showing in red the states he won — covering most of the territory of the US — even suggesting to at least one reporter that his newspaper run the map on its front page.

Suggestions by Bannon that he played a major role in Trump’s election victory were poisonous to the relationship between the two men. And so this White House misfit finally had to go.

Now that Bannon is gone, however, he will hurl missives from his new-old perch at Breitbart, to which he returned the same day as his announced departure.

Elizabeth Drew is a contributor to The New York Review of Books and the author of Washington Journal: Reporting Watergate and Richard Nixon’s Downfall.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017.

More in this section

IE logo


The Business Hub

News and analysis on business, money and jobs from Munster and beyond by our expert team of business writers.

Sign up
Puzzles logo

Puzzles hub

News Wrap

A lunchtime summary of content highlights on the Irish Examiner website. Delivered at 1pm each day.

Sign up
Cookie Policy Privacy Policy FAQ Help Contact Us Terms and Conditions

© Irish Examiner Ltd