Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Interested in your collective take on Bannon's speech to the California GOP
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by TSRF.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 22, 2017 at 12:35 am #76354waterfieldParticipant
===
This is what Steve Bannon told the California Republican Party convention
By Los Angeles Times Staff Donald Trump John McCain Republican Party Hillary Clinton Brexit Barack Obama Rudy Giuliani
Editor’s note: Former Trump administration strategist and GOP agitator Stephen K. Bannon addressed California Republicans at their fall convention in Anaheim on Friday. Here is a transcript of his keynote address as compiled by Los Angeles Times staff.
I just want to make sure you know that your work is not wasted. Time magazine is coming out with this new edition this week and it just posted on its website. Its lead story: “Senate Republicans finally got something done.”
(audience applauds)
They should thank Steve Bannon.
(audience laughs)
I know everyone isn’t happy about the budget that they passed today, but if you want tax reform, we had to have that budget pass and they finally got something done. It’s not about me. It’s about the people in the convention today. It’s about the people in Alabama. It’s about the people in Wisconsin. It’s about the people in Tennessee. The Republican establishment is finally getting the joke. They are going to have to step it up.
(audience applauds)
The theme of my speech and our talk tonight is victory begets victory.
At 2:30 a.m. on the 9th of November 2016 (audience cheers), the Associated Press announced that Donald J. Trump was the president-elect of the United States. Eighty-five days before that, on I think it was August 14th or 15th, I took over as CEO with Kellyanne Conway as our campaign manager.
I think the numbers are roughly something like this. We were 16 points down. I think double digits down or thereabouts on every battleground state. We were 70 on the generic ballot of Republicans. You gotta be at 90. Nine out of every 10 Republicans have to vote for you for the president of the United States to win.
The campaign didn’t have a lot of money, not a lot of organization. First call I made was to Reince Priebus at the RNC and got his best people — Katie Walsh, Reince, Sean Spicer, all of them came up. I got Dave Bossie, like I said Kellyanne Conway, Bill Stepien. We put together a team in 72 hours.
Victory begets victory. We don’t have a problem with ideas. We have a problem of understanding how to win. It is about winning. Nothing else matters. If you want to take your state back, if you want to take your country back, you’re going to have to roll your sleeves up. There is no one person — Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Ted Cruz, Laura Ingraham, Steve Bannon. They are not going to get this done.
What’s gonna get it done is each and every one of you and the people at this convention. How do we pull off the win? We pulled off the win by having the RNC and the Republican establishment put their shoulder to the wheel with the Trump campaign state by state.
We had a strategy. We knew we had to win Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Iowa just to get to the table. I don’t think a Republican in living memory has done that.
Once we got there, we had two paths to victory. The path that I was most focused on, with a couple of guys in the campaign, because we had the data analytics and micro targeting to show us what to do was break the blue wall up north — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa. In Minnesota we lost by one point.
Now how did we do that? We did it through teamwork. We did it through a coalition.
What we had to bring together, were populists and nationalists and evangelical Christians and conservatives and establishment Republicans. We had to put our differences aside in order to win.
Since that time, some of those differences have come up. The United States Senate in particular has done, I think, a terrible job in supporting President Trump.
And let me say something about President Trump: I’ve had the great honor of being the CEO of the campaign and then being his chief strategist and senior council in the White House. And now, I’m proud to say, his wingman outside.
You know, Donald Trump was worth what? I don’t know, four, five, six, seven billion dollars? Had a lovely wife, a great family, loving children, he had friends. When you see Donald Trump around his friends, you know what friendship really is — real camaraderie.
He owned some of the best properties in the world. He was buying golf courses and turning those golf courses, some of them championship courses, getting them into the open championship … . Doing things that a guy that is about 70 years old would do at the culmination of one’s life, right? Kinda that last sprint that you’re going to have.
There was no reason for him to run for president of the United States, except one. He felt he had a duty to his country.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent 2.2 billion dollars. I think Trump’s campaign was 750 million dollars, roughly. Somewhere like that.
And all that money was not to debate issues. We didn’t have a big debate on immigration or on national security. There wasn’t a big debate on tax policy.
What they used it for was the politics of personal destruction. They tried to destroy Donald Trump, and you know why? Because Donald Trump is an existential threat to the system. That’s a highfalutin, you know, Harvard word. What does that mean? It means it goes right to the heart of the beast.
Donald Trump knows all the games, he knows all the scams, he knows everything that goes down in Washington, D.C. They’ve tried to shake businessmen like Donald Trump down for years. The permanent political class that runs this country is one of the great dangers we face.
Coverage of California politics »
Everything you see on cable TV, everything you see that these guys back here, the opposition party, and good evening opposition party.
(audience boos)
Nobody should say CNN sucks. This is not a Trump rally. Everything you see on cable TV, you know MSNBC or CNN or Fox, that’s pro wrestling. That’s in the foreground, right? That’s to divert your attention of what’s really going on, OK?
There is a business model that the permanent political class have.
Seven of the nine richest counties in the United States of America surround Washington, D.C. For the first time since the invention of the Silicon ship, Washington, D.C., those seven counties have a higher per-cap income than Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley, which by the way has led the greatest revolution in technology in man’s history, and had more great inventions. Now what does Washington, D.C., have? What they’ve got is basically a private equity fund of every year, what four trillion dollars that they divvy up.
The consulting class, the lobbyists, the K street crowd, the donor class and the politicians the own, they have taken this country in a very, very dangerous — very, very dangerous — direction.
Donald Trump, the whole campaign, and this is why it had to be a coalition. This is why it had to be the Republican establishment, it had to be limited-government conservatives, it had to be libertarians, it had to be populists, it had to be economic nationalists, it had to be evangelical Christians.
If you have the wisdom, the strength, the tenacity to hold that coalition together, we will govern for 50 to 75 years. And it’s not going to be easy. Not everybody agrees on everything, right? Grover Norquist, I don’t know where Grover is here tonight. Grover, where are you, brother? Grover Norquist, one of the greatest guys on taxes around. Grover and I don’t agree on everything in policy, right?
The economic nationalists don’t agree with the libertarians, the libertarians don’t agree with the limited government conservatives. Often times we have a lot of different opinions on foreign policy. But we agree on enough stuff that we combine together.
If we do not unite, and unite not just in campaigning but in governing, and understand we are going to have to put certain differences aside to get things done. We are going to be run out of office and you know what? We deserve to be run out of office. There is absolutely no excuses anymore.
I hate people that whine. A lot of what I hear all the time is nothing but whining. And that whining is, oh we can’t do this and we can’t do that. We have the House, we have the Senate, we have presidency we have the executive branch of the government. We are about to get the Supreme Court and we are about to get the judiciary system back.
There is absolutely nothing we can’t do. If we do one thing, if we move with urgency. Now the resistance that comes up against that, is not the people that are outside protesting tonight. When those people finally understand what economic nationalism is about and it’s not about your race, your color, your gender, your religion, your ethnicity, your sexual preference.
It’s about one thing: Are you a citizen of the United States of America? Because if you are a citizen, there are certain responsibilities and obligations that come with that. But as a citizen also you should have preference for jobs and economic opportunities. Economic nationalism is not what’s going to drive us apart, it’s what’s going to bind us together.
We’ve had a very dangerous thing come as conservatives over the last 30 or 40 years — just another thing I know everybody in this room is not going to agree with. This kind of Austrian School of economics, this kind of Ayn Rand, you know, where everything was about the economy. What was most important six weeks before the election — gotta see what the unemployment rate is, it’s GDP as everything.
We are not an economy. We are a country. We have a social fabric and a civic responsibility. By the way, I’m a free market capitalist, as most of you are, right? That’s the underpinnings of our society.
But we are a civic society, it’s more than an economy. An economic nationalism, looking out for our fellow men to make sure that manufacturing jobs that we allowed go to Asia come back to the United States of America.
If you want to talk about the civic society, I don’t know if y’all have read J.D. Vance’s fantastic book, “Hillbilly Elegies” [sic]. J.D. is a guy who went to Yale, a Marine Corps officer, fantastic writer and a conservative. And a conservative.
But the book shows kind of the socioeconomic underpinnings of the Trump revolt, particularly in the upper Midwest. And J.D. was a guy that showed me a study that had been done by a couple of professors at MIT and Harvard. It shows you a direct correlation between the factories that got shipped to Asia, the jobs that left and the individuals behind that became addicted in this opioid crisis.
Our country is in a crisis. We have to move with urgency. The working class people in this country have responded to our message. They’ve responded to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is the only person that could have beaten Hillary Clinton. He is an imperfect individual as we are all imperfect. But he was an instrument. You could say he was an instrument of god’s will or not, but I will tell you it took the hand of divine providence to win on November 9 of 2016.
And that’s one of the things that upset me so much about what’s happened in the last six or seven months. The lack of urgency, the lack of work. You know I’m so proud of this thing right here: Mitch McConnell announced the other day that they’re going to start working five and six days a week. People in this country are working two and three jobs.
During the last hurricane, I think it was on CNN and this was not fake news. Somebody did a study, and I think I’m quoting correctly, that half of the households in this country, in our beloved country, don’t have 400 dollars in cash to meet an emergency. Four hundred dollars in cash.
What would the people that fought in the American Revolution think about that? What would the people who died in Guadalcanal think about that? That we have a country that has created 5 trillion dollars of wealth on the combined stock exchanges in equity value, right? But the people that have a high school diploma have not had a raise since 1970, and that half of the families in this country can’t find 400 dollars in cash.
If we do not take care of this problem — and I’m not about redistribution of wealth — but what I am about and what we have to be about is that people do not have to compete unfairly against foreign labor, whether that foreign labor is in China or whether that is illegal alien labor that comes into the United States of America.
Victory begets victory. Look what’s happened since Alabama. Let’s talk about Alabama for a second. Now Alabama, I was on the opposite side of the football with the president. There were a couple of reasons for that. I think the president got some bad information. But I will tell you what: You see the power in Alabama of the evangelical Christian movement and the populist nationalist that Mo Brooks represented. When they come together, you cannot beat them. And you can’t beat them with money.
The theory of the case in Alabama was very simple and it’s the reason why I didn’t want any big donors putting money in. We had to prove something: that the donor class and Mitch McConnell’s money doesn’t mean anything. We had to turn their biggest asset into their biggest liability.
They spent 32 million dollars. Thirty-two million dollars on a state like Alabama against two million from Judge Roy Moore. And you know what they did? It wasn’t there to debate the great issues of our time. It wasn’t there to debate immigration. It wasn’t there to debate America’s role in the world. Just like Hillary Clinton and the Democrats came after Donald Trump, it was the politics of personal destruction. It was against Judge Moore and it was against his wife.
And you know what they said his big crime was? That he put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. The Ten Commandments, which is the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west, and reinforces man’s imperfection.
Judge Moore won 55-45. Fox News put up some fake news yesterday, a poll that showed that Judge Moore tied. Just to say, ‘Hey, this revolt that Bannon and these crazies are doing against the Republican establishment are not going to turn out too well.”
Well guess what? Today’s poll. By the way that was for registered voters not likely voters. The poll that came out today from the local TV station that got the primary dead spot-on, Judge Moore is up by 11 points.
The good thing about Alabama is look at what has happened since then. What we have had DAC, we had the 70-point program on DACA, including 20 deal killers and on top of a White House official — I won’t say it’s Steven Miller — but a White House official came out and said there is no path to citizenship, right?
We had pulling out of UNESCO, right? We had the decertification of the Iran deal, IGRC [sic], a terrorist organization. We had stopped the illegal payments on Obamacare, the CSR payments. We had Secretary Mnuchin come out and reinforce this is going to be a middle-class tax cut, and the entrepreneurs are going to get almost the same tax cut that the big corporations are going to get, just to reinforce it.
Hell, every day since Alabama is Christmas Day. You know why? Winning matters.
You’re not here to waste your time. You’re not here to have moral victories. I don’t want moral victories. I want victory victories. Because when you have victories you redo the judiciary for a generation. When you have victories you start to get our tax structure correct. When you get victories, you redo these crappy trade deals and start protecting American workers, American companies.
It’s time in California we started to have some victories. The resistance is not the people you see outside. That’s not the resistance, right? That’s actually, quite frankly, going to help Republicans. Because right now on those 23 very difficult districts that Hillary Clinton won yet Republicans have the House seats? The generic ballot? You may be 10 points down. But the resistance, our buddies outside, right? Who are good folks, they’re just misled, misinformed. They’re going to drag it so far to the left that we’re going to hold those districts, right? And Nancy Pelosi is not going to get her opportunity to impeach the president of the United States.
The resistance is this permanent political class, this combination of lobbyist and consultants and corporatists and globalists elites. And the heart of the resistance, the beating heart of it is Silicon Valley. The folks up there think that they get a special deal, right?
Put these companies in Ireland or Luxembourg or the Canary Islands where they put them so they don’t have to pay taxes, right? They want all the benefits of a free society. They want all the benefits of this rules-based international order, right? This thing that we have created since World War II, this inextricably linked combination of commercial relationships, trade deals, capital markets, that we the citizens of the United States underwrite. And our sons and daughters, whether they went to West Point, the Naval Academy or just went down to boot camp in Parris Island or in San Diego — they underwrite it. We underwrite the whole thing.
That is what Donald Trump, that’s why he is an existential threat to the system. He understands that. He looks at the EU and says we are upside down in the trade deal and we fully finance NATO. Oh, excuse me, because Donald Trump forces them to pay 2%.
Let’s talk about that for a second. Donald Trump put in a supplemental to the ‘17 budget of 30 billion dollars to upgrade our military because the readiness was so low. Because of these endless wars that we have been fighting for 15, 16, 17 years. Thirty billion dollars to the Marine Corps, the Air Force, the Navy for equipment and to help their people out. Thirty billion dollars in supplemental on a budget that was already 650 billion dollars.
The entire defense budget of Germany is 30 billion dollars or 32 billion dollars. Europe doesn’t even make an attempt to defend itself. They are a protectorate of the United States of America. The gulf countries are protectorates of the United States of America. The countries around the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca: protectorates of the United States of America. Korea, Japan: protectorates of the United States of America.
That’s what Donald Trump sees, that’s why he talks about “America first.” It’s not that we are going to be isolationist. It’s not that we are going to walk away from the world, but we have to start thinking like adults about what the world is.
Within the last couple of days — it’s very interesting — and within 24 hours of each other, there were three speeches: President Xi in China, our beloved President George Bush (audience boos) — that’s a piece of work — and John McCain (audience boos).
John McCain’s grandfather is one of the greatest naval officers of the 20th century. We would not have won the war in the Pacific and World War II. Admiral Nimitz would not have won that without Admiral McCain. His father, a great naval officer. We would not have been as successful in Vietnam as we were with the fleet on the gun line on our Navy Air if it was not for John McCain’s father.
John McCain, his service to the United States Navy is a pride to every naval officer in how he handled himself. And how John McCain has handled himself with this horrible disease he has and the class that his wife and daughter have shown, the whole family, and his two sons who serve in the Marine Corps. John McCain deserves our respect.
However, as a politician, John McCain is just another senator from Arizona. John McCain, the other day — and they were all loud — the New York Times and “Morning Joe,” it was the greatest speech in human history. It was Pericles in Athens, right? The speech was nothing but happy talk. We live in a dangerous world. It’s time we started treating our fellow countrymen like adults and having adult conversations with them.
President Bush to me embarrassed himself. Speechwriter wrote a highfalutin speech. It’s clear he didn’t understand anything that he was talking about. He equates the industrial revolution, the agriculture revolution, globalization. He has no earthly idea whether he is coming or going — just like it was when he was president of the United States.
I want to apologize upfront to any of the Bush folks outside, in this audience, OK? Because there has not been a more destructive presidency than George Bush’s. (audience applauds)
The rise of China started with the Clintons and Bush. When they had this great theory that if you let them into the World Trade Organization and give them the most favored nations, that they are going to become a liberal democracy as they get bigger, OK? And they are going to become more free market capitalist.
This is not a small mistake. This is a strategic mistake of incalculable problems. Xi’s speech the other night was not that we are going to be a super power with the United States, it’s we’re going to be a hegemony. That our system, the Confucian mercantilist system, the system they’ve run of us for the last 30 or 40 years, is going to be dominant throughout the world.
That the One Belt One Road, this massive geopolitical project they have, that’s now moving into central Asia with the same naval bases around it that the British and the Americans had. It’s a geopolitical expansion of, quite frankly, breathtaking audacity.
The Chinese have told you: Not only are they gonna run the tables on us, they’ve run the tables on us.
Brexit in 2016 are inextricably linked. I’m very proud of the fact that the morning after we won, Nigel Farage came up and said to BBC, “If it had not been for Breitbart London, there would not have been a Brexit.” (audience applauds)
Raheem Kassam and Alex Marlow, the guys that did that are here, but provided a platform for UKIP to actually talk about what the issues were.
But although Brexit in 2016, and Hillary Clinton just admitted this the other day on BBC, that that was a forerunner. Canary in the mineshaft, as we knew it was gonna be.
The undertone of that, the ground tone of that, was China. It’s China exporting of deflation in excess capacity that helped gut the midlands factory towns in the Upper Midwest. And it’s bringing those jobs back, it’s bringing those jobs back where the opioid crisis is today that’s going to be our great challenge.
Silicon Valley, one of the things that I’m proudest of in the trade that we came up with is not the 232 about steel and the tariffs — which had everybody’s hair on fire, you know, where China is totally gaming us with the rest of the world to destroy our steel industry — but it’s the forced technology transfer of our technology. 3.5 trillion dollars in the last 10 years — I’m not talking about theft. Theft is horrific. But that’s due to human agency; it can’t be changed.
I’m talking about tribute. We are a tributary state to China. We are Jamestown to their Great Britain. We have a 400-billion-dollar trade deficit. We’d have five or six hundred billion if we didn’t ship over, you know, coal and oil and gas and timber and copper and soybeans and hogs and beef and Boeing jets and Apple products. Oh excuse me, we don’t send Boeing jets and Apple products anymore. We don’t send any high-value manufacturing because they have all the manufacturing.
The decline in America’s ability to have folks to make a living is directly related — directly related — to us being gamed by China. The ascended economy of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Hollywood and Washington, D.C., made out great. It’s the descended economy, the shrinking economy, the people working two and three jobs, the people tied up in this opioid crisis — they are the ones that got screwed. And those are the ones that are looking for our leadership to turn this country around.
The candidates, the digital age has given us something very special. It’s helped us. And you see it in Alabama. In the digital age, it’s made the analog even more important. We only need three things to win, three things. You need authenticity of a candidate. No more blow-dries, no more Frank Luntz “Words That Work” and words that don’t work. Give me Donald Trump, give me Nigel Farage, give me Judge Roy Moore, give me Mo Brooks, give me any of these people. Give me somebody that’s authentic.
You don’t have to be perfect. This is not a commoditized product like Proctor & Gamble. We need authenticity. As we know in the internet today, that’s something that people look for.
Number two, we need bold ideas. And not just quoting the thing of [unintelligible], I mean bold, actionable ideas. Ideas like Donald Trump ran on. Like build the wall, protect our southern border, reduce legal immigration, restrict HB1 [sic] visas, because in restricting HB1 visas the Hispanic and black kids can get into engineering schools and then they can go to Silicon Valley and work because they are citizens of the United States of America.
This populist, nationalist, conservative coalition if we hold together… And why is populism so important? Populism is going to force decision-making down to the people. It’s going to have more policies that directly related to the people’s benefit. That the elites themselves are not going to garner all the advantages of it.
Why nationalism? I can tell you why. The Chinese are very nationalistic. It worked for them. We have to stop worrying about these global institutions, right? That America is just one part of, and that we spend all out tax dollars and our muscle of our children to defend and propagate. No, the rules-based international order has worked for everybody but the United States of America. It’s going to have to be totally rethought.
In doing that and taking on these global elites we are going to have to also worry about the lords of technology in Silicon Valley. One thing that we are going to have to focus on — and this is going to be your primary responsibility, and hopefully when certain individuals are governor. But you’ve got a very dangerous thing going on in this state.
California is to Donald Trump as South Carolina was to Andrew Jackson. Back in the 1830s the folks in South Carolina didn’t like the fact that Jackson, a populist, and Congress had put on tariffs, federal tariffs, on product. And they decided that in South Carolina they weren’t going to have those tariffs, and they were independent and they could do what they want. They could choose what federal laws they wanted to have and not have.
And General Jackson said that if they can pick and choose what laws they want, eventually they are going to split off and try to try to form a Southern Confederacy, said this like in 1832. So Jackson passed another law and powered the U.S. Army. He was going to send the Army into South Carolina. And he told somebody, “And if I have to, I’m going to hang John C. Calhoun from a lamppost, but we are going to enforce federal law.”
You’ve nullified the sanctuary cities law in this state. In fact, you are a sanctuary state. And trust me, if you do not roll this back — and I’m talking about people in this room — 10 or 15 years from now the folks in Silicon Valley and the progressive left in this state are going to try to secede from the union.
Now my hometown is Richmond, Virginia. My hometown was burned to the ground in April 1865. And in hindsight, it was burned to the ground for a pretty good reason.
We thought the secession issue was settled 150 years ago and it’s going to be a living problem here in California. But here’s the good news: It’s always darkest before the dawn.
It looks like now it is impossible to do anything in California. Demographics against you. The media is against you. The culture is against you. It couldn’t be farther from the truth.
You’ve got everything you need to win. You’ve got authentic people. You’ve got big ideas. And you have a grassroots, you have the muscle. The third part you need is commitment.
You know who showed us how to do this? Two guys: David Axelrod and Barack Obama. Remember Barack Obama?
By the way, Rudy Giuliani, I’ve got so much respect for Rudy Giuliani, he’s one of the greatest guys I’ve ever met. President wouldn’t be president without Rudy Giuliani. But remember in 2008 during the Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani came on stage and was giving this talk about Barack Obama, and he said, “What is a community organizer?” Yeah, well, now we know, someone who can kick your … .
You may not like Obama’s policies, but a heck of a politician. Axelrod ran him in 2008 as a populist with limited experience. Used the experience, the lack of experience, as a benefit. And what he did, he put together a grassroots army. That’s exactly what we’re trying to do in 2017 and 2018 on this revolt against Republican establishment.
If you see the candidates coming up, they are all authentic. The Nicholson in Wisconsin, Morrisey in West Virginia, Rosendale in Montana, Dr. Kelli Ward in Arizona, Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee. And they’ve got big ideas. Do you know what the ideas are? Hey, maybe I’m going to support Donald Trump’s agenda.
And we’re putting together a grassroots army. A grassroots army that is going to go door to door. That shows that we don’t need to raise hundreds and millions of dollars. So the Karl Roves of the world don’t buy TV time on attack ads. I apologize, I wasn’t going to mention Karl Rove’s name today even though in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal he wrote a very, you know, I won’t say nasty, but a very unfriendly editorial yesterday. I don’t like punching down, so I’m not going to say anything about Karl Rove.
The future of the state is in your hands and I mean that. You’ve got Andrew Sullivan in New York Magazine tonight. I recommend everybody go online and read it. It’s one of the most liberal magazines out there. Incredibly well-written, though, very insightful. I read it all the time. It has great insights, great writers. Very left wing, very progressive. Andrew Sullivan is a former conservative, though, writes for them. He worked through the whole immigration issue and said that the left has overplayed their hand. And they’ve given the Republicans and the conservatives the one weapon they need to destroy them.
You have that in your hands. Everything you need to win, you have. You have great candidates, you’ve got big bold ideas — actionable ideas — and you can put together a grassroots army. Hasn’t happened in California to date, but you can do it — and you are going to have to do it.
This is the great Fourth Turning in American history. We’ve had the Revolution, the Civil War, Great Depression, World War II and now we’ve got what we are in today. And history, when they look back a couple of hundred of years, they’ll say, “Did it start with 9/11, or did it start with the financial crisis or did it start with election of Donald Trump?” We don’t know that yet. We don’t know really what triggered this turning, OK?
But I’ll tell you, the next five, 10, 15, 20, 25 years, we’re going to be, this country is going to come through this, and it’s going to be one thing or the other. It’s either going to be the country that was bequeathed to us by the previous what, 12 or 13 generations? Or it’s going to be something totally different.
Now what it is is going to depend 100% upon you. You can’t look to Trump or Mark Meadows or Ted Cruz or Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity or Steve Bannon. Look at yourselves. Because if you don’t put your shoulder to the wheel, if you don’t hold yourself accountable, it’s not going to happen.
I would love to come up here and say, “Hey, it’s all going to be sunny skies, it’s all going to be great.” It’s not. We got a tough slog ahead of us.
Everybody thought on the morning of the ninth when you woke up that it was all going to be great. Donald Trump is the president of the United States. We control the Senate and the House.
Look what’s happened in the last eight months. Folks in Alabama thought the other day same thing when Judge Moore wins, it’s all going to be sunlit uplands. It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen.
The permanent political class that controls this country and then the progressive Democrats on the other side of that are not just going to sit there and give you your country back. You’re going to have to take it back. (audience applauds and cheers) And you’re going to have to take it back by fighting for it.
So tonight, when you say your prayers, and you pray for your country and you pray for president Trump and his family, you pray for his troops, offer one other little prayer — and that is for yourselves. That 100 years from now when they look back, they will look at you and you and you and you and you and you folks back there, and that when your country needed you, your state needed you, your community needed you, you stood up and answered the call.
Lao Tzu is a Chinese philosopher about 2,500 years ago. He said, “That leader is best when his work is done, his objective achieved. The people turn and say, ‘Look what we have accomplished ourselves.’”
Goodnight.
(Audience applauds and cheers)
October 22, 2017 at 1:03 am #76355znModeratorW — your link didn’t work so I took the liberty of replacing it with a vid and a transcript from (what I believe is) the speech you’re referring to.
I can’t respond to it tonight, though, myself. I hope others do.
…
October 23, 2017 at 4:58 pm #76455ZooeyModeratorI don’t know. I can’t make my way through Bannon.
All I know is that he is “anti-establishment,” but I’m not sure exactly what he thinks the establishment IS – what it represents – how it works. I think he is kind of pro-American worker, sort of, but I think he means white American workers, and I think he thinks that all our international entanglements are detrimental to us (whites), and that we would all be fine, and all be wealthier, if we didn’t get entangled with all these other people on the planet.
But I’m not SURE that’s what he thinks because he talks like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving who emerged into the conversation from the next room to take over with some rant that he thinks is somehow related to what we were talking about. I can’t follow Bannon. He isn’t lucid.
And I don’t think he knows what he is talking about. I don’t think he knows how things actually work, what policies do, what institutions do, and who backs those institutions or why. I think he is a fucking drunk uncle on an incoherent rant all the time, but with enough brains to do coherent damage.
In short, I don’t see any value in spending half an hour of my time listening to him. I might if I thought I could understand him, if he wasn’t drunk. But I just don’t have the energy to do all the work on the subtext of his rants.
October 23, 2017 at 11:57 pm #76465ZooeyModeratorOh, hey. Look what I just stumbled across…an article by someone a lot more articulate than I am.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/what-is-the-intra-republican-conflict-even-about
OCTOBER 23, 2017
WHAT IS THE INTRA-REPUBLICAN CONFLICT EVEN ABOUT?The GOP’s agenda is the same no matter who is in charge: cut social services, let rich people run everything…
by NATHAN J. ROBINSONI know that Steve Bannon wants to wage “war against the GOP establishment.” But some days I am not sure what that war is even about. I know it is a fight over whether the right will identify as “nationalist,” “populist,” “anti-globalization,” “anti-interventionist,” and “protectionist,” and I know roughly what those words mean. And yet, to some degree, I still don’t really get what this means, because both sides in this “war” look very similar to me: both are authoritarian, both believe that the lives of immigrants and racial minorities don’t matter terribly much, both seem to believe that rich people should control the destinies of non-rich people. While I know there is some real-world implication to the battle over “protectionism,” I cannot help but feel as if a large part of the intra-GOP war is an ideologically empty power struggle.
Consider Peter Wehner’s recent New York Times op-ed “Going Against The Republican Herd.” Wehner is a “so-called establishment Republican” horrified by the forces of Bannonism and Trumpism. He insists there is an “existential” battle within the party between “the tribalistic, angry, anti-government wing of the party” who have “embraced white identity politics,” that some have “jettisoned traditional conservatism in favor of the Trump-Bannon brand of ethnonationalism” and “developed a disdain for the hard, intricate work of governing.” These new forces, he says, are “revolutionaries” who “peddle conspiracy theories” and have a “nihilistic strain” fueled by feelings of “powerlessness, resentment, and grievance” and encouraged by “Breitbart and Alex Jones.” Wehner calls on sensible Republicans to recognize “the danger Trumpism and Bannonism pose to the principles they claim to hold dear” and longs for “leaders of courage and purpose who, in a fractious and intemperate age, believe—and can help others believe—that one of the high callings of politics is to heal our wounds rather than inflict new ones.” Wehner and Bannon therefore share the same basic view of the state of Republican politics: there is a battle going on, and it is an important one, and the stakes are high. It is the forces of tradition versus the forces of revolution. And both agree that the revolutionaries will stop at nothing. As Wehner says: “Their rage at the establishment is off the charts. They want to burn the village down.”
And yet there’s something very strange about all this talk of a battle between “elites” and “radicals” in the GOP: I don’t know what any of it actually means for the real world. It almost seems like a fight over rhetoric: will the GOP have slightly more explicit xenophobia or not? The actual implications of it are always a little murky. It seems so obvious that there’s an irreconcilable ideological difference between Bannon and Wehner: after all, both of them say there is. But one peculiar thing about Wehner’s op-ed is that, while he uses a lot of general terms about those who are “angry” versus those who believe in “healing,” he doesn’t actually say much about what the policy differences between the two forces are. The most specific concrete difference he cites is that the new conspiratorial, angry right have a slightly more favorable view of Vladimir Putin than their establishment counterparts.
Presumably, the difference between Bannon and Wehner can be boiled down to the difference between Breitbart and, say, The Weekly Standard. But the main difference between Breitbart and The Weekly Standard is that Breitbart’s headlines are in all-caps. The schism largely seems to be one of tone: will right-wing politics be brash, vulgar, and shameless or sober and polite? Will it wear a tie and a flag pin, or will it have a five o’clock shadow and three open-collared shirts? In fact, when you look at The Weekly Standard itself, we can see how illusory the ideological difference really is. Their lead article right now is about how Trump, even though he seems unprincipled and not-very-conservative, is actually governing precisely as they hope a “small government Republican” would, refusing to issue new regulations and eliminating old ones. As they note, “it can be useful to distinguish between the person of the president, who has no discernible ideology, and his presidency, which, so far, has been strikingly conservative.” That means that while there might be a difference in theory between Trump and orthodox conservatism, and while the spectacle of Trump is certainly different from anything previously known in Republican politics, in practice they are virtually identical: tax cuts for the rich, gutting environmental protections, further bloating the military.
One odd thing about Steve Bannon in particular is that while he’s completely fanatical about his ideology, it’s often a little unclear what it would actually mean if put into practice. Probably the most comprehensive guide to understanding Bannonism is BuzzFeed’s “This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World,” a transcript of a 2014 talk in which Bannon explains his basic political framework. And yet after reading it, while I understand that Bannon sees the world differently from the way orthodox conservatives see it, I don’t understand how Bannon wants to change the world in ways that differ much from what traditional conservatives want.
Consider Bannon’s perspective on capitalism. This is one of the points where Bannon differs from the rest of the GOP. He is, after all, a “protectionist” and “economic nationalist.” He also believes there is a “crisis of capitalism” and has spoken critically of “bankers.” That’s certainly not typical Republican talk! But then look at what he says about what the “crisis” of capitalism is:
I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian West, is in a crisis…. Principally in the West, but we’re expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West in our beliefs… When capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did. And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.
Okay, so Bannon thinks the world is in crisis while other Republicans don’t. But what does he believe in? He believes in a mixture of capitalism and Christianity. Whereas the rest of the Republican party are simply… Christians who love capitalism? I mean, I guess Bannon says he doesn’t like it when people are turned into “commodities,” and doesn’t think everything should be securitized, which is language you don’t usually hear from Wall Street types. But does that mean he wants to expand the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Does it means he wants to increase the power of the SEC? Bannon was one of the few in the Trump administration who believed that rich people might need to have their taxes raised slightly, but even that was in the service of a massive tax cut for everybody else. So what are we actually talking about here? Is the difference between Bannon and Wehner the difference between whether you strangle the federal government with a tax cut for 99% of people or strangle it with a tax cut for 100% of people?
So much of the narrative around a divide between the “sensible, moderate” GOP of old and the “radical, fringe” insurgent faction seems designed to get us to forget just how radical the “moderates” have always been. Wehner is disdainful of Breitbart-ism for pushing “conspiracy theories” and “anti-truths.” But Wehner’s Republicans have spent the last decade pushing conspiracy theories about voter fraud in order to kick black people off the voter rolls, and Wehner was head speechwriter for the Bush Administration, for God’s sake, which was responsible for the deadliest set of untruths in recent American history. The idea that conservatives used to be “principled” but that people like Bannon and Trump are “unprincipled” is itself a shameless fabrication. What were these principles? When were they ever held? Were they the principles of Reagan, a man who funneled $1 million a day to death squads, worsened inequality with tax cuts to rich people, and cut social benefits for elderly, blind, and disabled people? It’s very common to hear attempts to distinguish the Good form of right-wing politics from the Bad form, but what you will rarely hear is a very clear explanation of what the differences would mean in practice for people’s lives. Unless I’m mistaken, both forms would like to see everyone kicked off food stamps, health care entirely turned over to the free market so that poor people will die from lack of coverage, and a system of mass incarceration housing millions of people.
The main obvious difference I can see between the policies of the “revolutionaries” and the “establishment” on the right is on immigration. The “establishment” are pro-business and want cheap immigrant labor, whereas the “revolutionaries” are xenophobic and want to deport every unauthorized person they find. It’s worth noting, first, that this is not really a difference between being pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant: it is a difference on the question of whether businesses should bring people here and brutally exploit them, or whether native-born Americans should be first in line to be exploited. It makes a difference in the lives of immigrants, but it’s not actually a substantive disagreement on who should hold economic power. However, it’s also important to be careful not to lapse into false nostalgia for some mythical “kind and gentle” GOP of the past. George W. Bush is known for his “compassionate” conservatism, for pushing immigration reform that would have allowed unauthorized people a path to citizenship. He’s therefore seen as representing a totally different Republican attitude toward the immigration question. But Bush was very clear at the time that, while he believed that deportation was impractical and immigration was important, he was in favor of radically strengthening control of the border. Increased border security, he said, was his first priority when it came to immigration:
First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists…Since I became president, we’ve have [sic] increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally… Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I’m calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency…. At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors, … infrared cameras… and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.
Bush did eventually succeed in his goal to more than double the size of the Border Patrol. He didn’t end up passing comprehensive immigration reform, but he did achieve what he said was his first priority, which was to crack down on illegal crossings. (Obama would go even further.)
So let’s be careful before buying the GOP’s own narratives about the different ideologies of its various factions. People like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach may be vicious in their hostility to unauthorized immigrants, but George W. Bush was no friend to them. Breitbart may be “anti-establishment” but only in the sense that it doesn’t like the people who have traditionally been in charge of the party; in terms of preserving the powers of the American ruling class, both sides are firmly in agreement. We know that all Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric was nonsense: he’s a billionaire who immediately installed a bunch of billionaires in his cabinet, and there’s a reason the Tea Party was funded by incredibly rich people. As Vanity Fair’’s Tina Nguyen writes, Steve Bannon’s revolution seems more like a “power grab” than anything substantive, and “Even Bannon’s allies suggested that the wannabe kingmaker’s insurgency lies more in populist packaging than in a real anti-establishment ideology.”
It’s important to always evaluate political conflicts by their potential real-world consequences for people, not by the different kinds of rhetoric deployed by each side. And right-wing politics is right-wing politics, whether it is christened “pro-business” or “nationalistic.” Either way, it advocates the same thing: control of the world by a small fraction of wealthy people, as everyone else subsists for a pittance, with a tiny, cruel government making no attempt to alleviate the injustices inflicted by the free market.
October 24, 2017 at 11:00 am #76490wvParticipantI wont even listen to him for thirty seconds.
When i see him, i honestly, sincerely, think of this painting. He should be in it. So should trump.
October 30, 2017 at 1:52 pm #76684TSRFParticipantI couldn’t (wouldn’t) watch it, or read more than a paragraph or two.
He’s like a tub of sour cream that is well past its expiration date.
Wonder when those gin blossoms on his face are going to go into full bloom?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.