If the New Yorker were serious about exploring the roots of President Trump’s “America First” agenda, it would’ve invited a serious populist to its annual festival.
But I suspect the magazine’s editor wasn’t serious about understanding and dissecting Trumpism when he invited former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. I suspect editor David Remnick wanted a right-wing punching bag to bat around for his readers’ amusement.
Remnick announced Monday that he had disinvited Bannon from appearing at the festival following an outcry from the event’s other invited guests.
“The main argument for not engaging someone like Bannon is that we are giving him a platform and that he will use it, unfiltered, to propel further the ‘ideas’ of white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and illiberalism,” Remnick said in an staff letter, which was obtained by the Wrap. “But to interview Bannon is not to endorse him. By conducting an interview with one of Trumpism’s leading creators and organizers, we are hardly pulling him out of obscurity. Ahead of the midterm elections and with 2020 in sight, we’d be taking the opportunity to question someone who helped assemble Trumpism.”
The editor explained further, “This isn’t a First Amendment question; it’s a question of putting pressure on a set of arguments and prejudices that have influenced our politics and a President still in office. Some on social media have said that there is no point in talking to Bannon because he is no longer in the White House. But Bannon has already exerted enormous impact on Trump; his rhetoric, ideas, and tactics are evident in much of what this President does and says and intends.”
The thing is: If Remnick really wanted to explore Trumpism, there are far better spokesmen for the job. Bannon is not only relatively new to these issues, but most of what he says is also merely the red meat bluster of a low-level Hollywood producer.
There are men who’ve spent far longer, speaking with far greater authority on populism and immigration, and Remnick could’ve asked any one of them to attend the festival. For example, the New Yorker editor could’ve invited:
3. Stephen Miller
Go directly to the source. Invite White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, whose hardline views on immigration not only inform Trump’s own positions, but they also predate the president’s ascendancy to the White House by several years.
Miller is no novice when it comes to immigration and populism, contra the myth spread by fabulist entertainment blogger Michael Wolff.
Anyone who reported on Congress between 2009 and 2016 can tell you former Sen. Jeff Sessions’, R-Ala., communications director is extremely well-versed on this stuff. He also enjoys fighting people, so a New Yorker festival would’ve been a perfect fit.
2. Nigel Farage
This seems like a no-brainer. Few public officials have been as outspoken proponents of populism than Farage. This is the same man who sold Brexit to the British.
He discusses these issues often, and he at least claims to have a blueprint. Also, he has a British accent. Americans love that.
1. Pat Buchanan
The godfather of American populism. Well, technically, he’s more of a paleoconservative. But the point remains: He was talking about making America great again long before Trump even became a business success. Buchanan’s hawkish immigration views are legendary.
He has also been pushing this stuff for literally decades, long before Trump was ever a thing. Buchanan’s an old hand at this, and he knows how to explain and discuss these issues well.
These men are all well known, as are their positions.
All of this is to say: My suspicion is that the New Yorker was never serious about investigating Trumpism. My suspicion is that the Bannon interview was a set-up from the beginning. The original plan was to lower the former Breitbart chief like a pinata, and then Remnick would knock him around a bit for the edification and amusement of the New Yorker’s audience. The New Yorker even had home field advantage!
Unfortunately for Remnick, it’s all silence, all the way down for political discourse in the United States. Today’s hyperpartisans can’t bear to hear the opposition, even when it’s in a favorable setting.
