Sewardenglish3.files.wordpress.com



Lucy SewardMLSC 600Professor Barrett15 November 2017There’s a New Prince in Town: Steve and Nicky’s Excellent, Brave New WorldThe election of Donald J. Trump to our country’s presidency delighted some and horrified others. Although many decry President Trump as devoid of a discernible ideology, many others believe that his actions and beliefs will indeed “make America great again.” But what does this slogan mean? To many Trumpians, American greatness lies in increased economic protectionism, a Euro-centric culture with limited immigration, and an “America first” foreign policy with an emphasis on isolation and bellicosity. In short, the Trump presidency thus far appears to be intent on dismantling many of the Obama administration’s policies, quite a transformation that requires, inter alia, strong leadership. In fact, with a nod toward political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, “the founder of modern political theory” (Deluga), one may say that President Trump seeks to establish a “new principality” (Machiavelli 19) in the United States of America using tactics that some may label “Machiavellian” (Major). A new world (or country) order is no short order. Although it is possible that President Trump leads this charge for change, many believe that Steve Bannon, the president’s former campaign manager and former chief strategist, stands at the vanguard of this movement’s agenda. In fact, some journalists report that “Bannon’s imprint can be seen on presidential decisions … [and nearly a]ll” policies” (Von Drehle). Accordingly, as Bannon’s influence pervades our government and political campaigns, many strive to identify the bases of Bannon’s strategy in order to comprehend the trajectory of his success and predict his future exploits. By his own admission, Bannon avidly studies history, has read voraciously on the topic since he was “9 or 10 years old,” and owns an impressive personal library (60 Minutes). It is difficult to picture a library of historical and political tomes without The Prince, touted as “the most infamous text in political thought” (Major). Additionally, at least one former Bannon employee describes his ex-boss as “purely Machiavellian” (Siddiqui). These facts beg the following question: in what ways, if any, does Steve Bannon’s political philosophy resemble Niccoló Machiavelli’s? A perusal of The Prince confirms a resemblance between Machiavelli’s advice and Bannon’s actions, despite the caveat from certain scholars that Machiavelli’s The Prince is “rich enough to support virtually any thesis” (Major, emphasis added)). Specifically, the resemblance is strong, particularly in the categories of establishing a “new” principality, affecting the traits of a fox and a lion, and, certainly not least, ruling with fear (Machiavelli 20, 69, 67). By his own admission, Bannon occupies the vanguard of a movement to disrupt the status quo (60 Minutes; Von Drehle) and to “take over [Congress]”as part of a “revolt of working-class people” (Peters). Similarly, in The Prince, Machiavelli launches a “bold and liberating attack on older traditions of political thought,” (Major), which sometimes results in a new order, or in Machiavelli’s world, “New Principalities” (Machiavelli 23). Machiavelli describes the genesis of one such new principality: It was necessary that Cyrus should find the Persians discontented with the government of the Medes, and the Medes soft and effeminate through their long peace… These opportunities, therefore, made those men fortunate, and their high ability enabled them to recognize their opportunity. (Id. 20) One may contemporize this passage with the following substitutions: Bannon for Cyrus; Trumpians for Persians; and the Obama administration and Democratic leadership for Medes. Specifically Bannon (fka Cyrus) noted that an “underlying substrate of an electorate (fka Persians) … wanted a change” (60 Minutes). Once Bannon identified his “Persians,” he moved to force Hillary Clinton (fka Medes) “to defend the status quo” (Id.). According to many commentators such as J.D. Vance, this “status quo” has left many rural whites in America underemployed and vulnerable to blights such as the opioid addiction epidemic (Lewis). Enter Steve Bannon, a self-described “patron saint of commoners” who seems to “relish the opportunity to clean out the old order and build a new [principality] in its place” (Von Drehle).In order to build a new principality, Bannon had only to reflect upon his background to identify his demographic support, a group of disaffected Americans, largely Caucasian, many poor, who were “willing to listen” to the Trump-Bannon call to action to stop the “economic and social decay” of our country (Lewis), even though certain pundits object to Bannon’s “rather severe outlook on what our nation is going through” (Von Drehle). Bannon hails from a “blue collar, Irish-Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats” (Id). Bannon’s father, a retired telephone company manager, provided his family with a middle class life. However, the financial crisis of 2008 eroded his father’s nest egg, evoking in Bannon an epiphany of “fundamental unfairness” that the “hardworking folks like his father got stiffed” while the bankers’ fortunes remained relatively unscathed (Id.). Once Bannon identified his electoral demographic, he set about charting his course, even though he likely knew that obstacles would arise. As Machiavelli states, “there is nothing more difficult … than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new” (Machiavelli 20, emphasis added). In order to disrupt the status quo, Bannon needed a “charismatic” leader, as “[c]harismatic leaders are able to evoke strong follower commitment to their vision” (Deluga citing Bass and Yukl). In 2011, while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Bannon thrilled to Trump’s “authenticity,” use of “vernacular,” and ability to “galvanize crowds” (60 Minutes). In short, on this fateful day, Bannon’s prince had come. Once Bannon identified his leader, he researched voting trends and discovered that, in 2012, “working class people did not vote for Mitt Romney” (Id.). Emboldened with this intelligence, Bannon began to analyze “what a working class populist movement would do in the general election” (Id.). Next, Bannon crafted his campaign vision: Hillary Clinton is “the standard bearer for a corrupt and incompetent status quo, and [Trump] is the agent of change” (Id.). Bannon shared this insight with Trump, and together they committed to and honed this message (Id.). By laying the foundation years ahead of the 2016 election, Bannon’s actions once again resembled Machiavelli’s words; however, this Prince passage poses a caveat instead of mere advice. Indeed, Machiavelli warns of undetected insurgents with the following chiasmus:[I]n the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. [I]n affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen, … they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that everyone can see them, there is no longer a remedy. (Machiavelli 8-9)Admittedly, many Americans do not see the Trump administration and Steve Bannon as evils; however, supporters of Obama-era policies may see the Trump presidency as a national “malady” for which no simple remedy exists. Moreover, although this demographic may lament Trumpian policies, they may also grudgingly admire the stealth and skill with which Bannon and his “insurgents” implemented their “attack on the establishment” (60 Minutes). Moreover, given the foregoing quoted passage, Machiavelli himself would likely approve of Bannon and Prince Trump’s tactics, given that they resemble those espoused in The Prince.The Princely resemblance does not stop there. In addition to advising new principalities, Machiavelli advises princes to emulate, variously, “the fox and the lion,” specifically, the “fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves” (Machiavelli 69). Bannon is the ultimate fox, for he not only eludes enemy traps, but proactively entraps his foes. For example, Bannon’s rhetorical style smacks of craftiness. First, Bannon frequently uses hypophora in his interviews; namely he poses a question and then answers it at length, which creates the impression that Bannon is conversing with his audience, intuitively addressing their tacit concerns. For example, during his interview with Charlie Rose, Bannon queries as follows: “Do you know why [Trump] ran? Do you know why he ran … He ran for duty to his country” (60 Minutes). Additionally, when describing then candidate Trump’s reaction to the release of the Access Hollywood tapes, Bannon engages in his own “call and response,” a technique he has praised Trump for using (albeit with an audience): “You know what he did? You know what he did … He took the elevator down …he went outside and talked to his followers … and Sunday night we had the debate” (Id.). Finally, weighing the impact of James Comey’s investigation into Clinton’s e-mails, Bannon asks and answers, “You know why the e-mails are important? The e-mails are important because they showed the Clinton [corruption and] cash” (Id.). By his extensive use of hypophora, Bannon usurps an interview’s rhythm, controls the conversation, and limits the potential for probing follow-up questions; furthermore, the conviction with which Bannon speaks implies that his answers confirm the truth. Case closed? Yes. Bannon also inserts his own concessions into his interviews. Typically a speaker’s use of concession conveys reasonableness to his audience, which increases that speaker’s ethos or credibility. However, typically a speaker concedes as a response to an opponent’s claim or statement. Bannon, in raising his own concessions in response to his own remarks, builds trust with his audience while maintaining control of and dominance over the conversation, just as Machiavelli’s Prince maintains control of his territory. An example? “[Obama] is an incorruptible guy as far as standard political corruption” goes, Bannon concedes (60 Minutes). By complimenting President Obama, likely admired by many in the 60 Minutes audience, Bannon establishes himself as a sound judge of character. Of course, Bannon then rebuts his concession with a diatribe about Hillary Clinton’s alleged corruption, a claim now rendered more credible by his earlier fulsome praise of President Obama. Result? Bannon exudes relative reasonableness without even acknowledging or even needing to consider an opposing position. In addition to rhetorical craftiness, Bannon sets other traps. A stunning example of Bannon’s cunning is his response to the released Access Hollywood tapes, in which then private citizen Donald J. Trump claims that, as celebrity, he can do “anything” to women, even “grab them by the pussy” (BBC). Instead of capitulating with contrition after the tapes’ release, Bannon continued to attack the Clinton campaign. Specifically, only days after the release of the incriminating tapes, Bannon arranged for women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to sit at the front of the debate audience (“right in that VIP box”) so that Bill Clinton “had to walk right past them on national TV.” Bannon reminisces, “We had the trap set. They walked right into it” (60 Minutes). Likewise, after Hillary Clinton accused Bannon of connections with white supremacists, Bannon said, that’s when I knew that “[w]e got her … [the Clinton campaign had] walked into a trap” of playing identity politics (Id.). As a former Bannon business partner comments: “[Bannon’s] a strategic thinker, about three or four steps down the road” (Von Drehle); in other words, Bannon epitomizes a Machiavellian fox. In addition to the fox, Machiavelli recommends that a prince have the traits of a lion to “terrify the wolves” (Machiavelli 69). Although Bannon’s physical appearance skews toward leonine, the physical resemblance only hints at what lurks within. Bannon touts himself as a “street fighter,” a “good counterpuncher” (60 Minutes). Of course, the aforementioned orchestration of at least a tacit confrontation between Bill Clinton and his accusers before the second Clinton-Trump debate reflects leonine aggression toward those of lupine proclivities. Bannon, however, has also roared at members of his own staff. Many former staffers describe Bannon as “volcanic” (Von Drehle). Although certain Bannon staffers stand by their boss’s explosive style, other are less forgiving: “[Bannon] regularly abuses people. He sees everything as war. Every time he feels crossed, he makes it his business to destroy his opponent” (Id.). Case in point: just days after the release of the Access Hollywood tape, Bannon rewarded those who stood by Trump and retaliated against those who did not. As he states, “I [took names]. I did. I will always know that when a guy like Trump runs toward the gunfire, you will be back in the foxhole” (Id.). Just as Bannon’s fox sets his own snares instead of merely avoiding them, Bannon’s lion not only fights wolves but also attacks disloyal lions.No discussion of Machiavelli would be complete without an acknowledgement of a prince’s use of fear to maintain power. As scholar Rafael Major notes, “Machiavelli appropriates the decisive rhetorical strategy of … appealing to an inevitable fear as the basis for his … outlook.” Indeed, Machiavelli claims that “it is much safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 66). The reason for this advice stems from, once again, maintaining a locus of power, as “men [love] according to their own will, [and] … a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control,” namely instigating fear (Id. 67). Bannon seems to have taken this advice to his so-called heart. Of course, the foregoing examples of Bannon in his self-described “street fighter” mode, particularly against his own staff, support his use of fear. Moreover, just as Bannon “overachieved” in his “fox and lion” mode, he also takes his exploitation of fear a notch higher than Machiavelli advises. Specifically, while Machiavelli states that a prince may choose to evoke his subjects’ fear of the prince, Bannon uses the citizenry’s fear of policy outcomes to solidify a terrified base of supporters. For example, “Bannon has warned that any movement to the left on guns would ‘be the end of everything, even more consequential than a move on immigration” (Nguyen). This hyperbolic claim smacks of emotional appeal and contains the logical fallacy of slippery slope. However as any competent rhetorician knows, emotional arguments often succeed when logic fails to persuade, particularly when the speaker seeks to mine his audience’s fear for political gain. As Major notes, “[Machiavelli exploits] our fear in impending doom to excuse the immorality to protect our borders.” On a similar note of exploiting fear, the “Muslim” travel ban, widely acknowledged as Bannon’s creation, “was said to be about [fighting] terrorism” (Wallace-Wells). Indeed, “the heart of the sweeping executive action … [reflects] Mr. Trump’s “America first” pledge to safeguard against what he has portrayed as a hidden influx of terrorists and criminals” (Thrush). Given the foregoing, the connection between Bannon’s ban and Machiavellian tenets appears quite solid. Major’s paraphrase of salient Prince passages bears weight here: “The necessities of maintenance and the overwhelming sense of insecurity are established by focusing on the inevitable threat of foreign invasion.” Scholar Phil Harris further notes that “Machiavelli argued that liberty is dependent upon the state being free from external domination and internal instability.” A keen observer could cite Messrs. Major’s and Harris’s statements, in addition to selected passages from The Prince, to provide Bannon’s ban with a compelling raison d’être. Perhaps someone already has; the resemblance is pelling evidence supports the resemblance between Bannon’s strategies and actions and Machiavelli’s tenets. However, this claim is not without its flaws. Accordingly, as is Bannon’s wont, this writer will anticipate a naysayer and include her own concession and rebuttal to a primary objection to the instant claim – that of confirmation bias. As Major confirms, “many people who have never read [Machiavelli] … have a[n] … acquaintance with his work,” and even “casual readers” know the phrase “’the ends justify the means,’” in addition to the “adjective Machiavellian.” This easy familiarity may constitute a superficial impression that masquerades as knowledge. Thus, Machiavelli’s notoriety supports Major’s caveat against finding “in [The Prince] what we already think we know” (Id.). Scholar Phil Harris parses these two iconic aspects of The Prince a bit deeper: first, “Machiavelli would not have supported a general maxim that the end justifies the means: … he simply believed that … morality was dangerously dogmatic, impractical, and irresponsible.” As for the term “Machiavellian,” Harris claims that “the Machiavellian image …is nothing more than a gross distortion of somebody … who observed power at first hand and suggested how it really worked,” which suggests that Machiavelli was not a cynic, but a pragmatic realist, who, as Lee A. Jacobus states, describes “the world as it really is, not as it should be” (Jacobus 85). Thus, to describe Machiavelli as amoral “is at very best simplistic, and at worst incorrect” (Harris). This objection deserves respect. Additionally, Machiavelli was a political theorist, while Bannon’s current reputation primarily stems from his actions. Admittedly, spotting a resemblance between theory and application requires a least a soup?on of subjective evaluation, an activity to which this writer freely admits, in addition to her ideological bias. However, an acknowledgement of potential pitfalls does not rob an analysis of value. A close analysis of Machiavelli’s precise text and Bannon’s undisputed statements supports a strong kinship between the two men. While this kinship may not suggest the intimacy of twins, the evidence amply supports a discernible resemblance between Machiavelli and Bannon, perhaps a resemblance more akin to cousins once removed who meet at an annual reunion and then part, one to return home to ruminate further, and one to seek adventure and glory in the real world. A second objection to the claim of a resemblance between Machiavelli and Bannon lies in the multifarious and ambiguous nature of the Princely text itself. Indeed, as Major concedes, The Prince is “rich enough to support virtually any thesis,” and Harris notes that “Machiavelli’s theories are very broad.” Objections duly noted. However, the complexity and breadth of the text may simply be a hallmark of Machiavelli’s astute political strategy. Context drives this rebuttal. Specifically, Machiavelli sent the Prince to Lorenzo de Medici, a prominent member of the de Medici family, who had just regained power in Florence (Marriott XI). In gifting de Medici with The Prince, Machiavelli hoped to recover his former governmental post. Therefore, while Machiavelli likely strove to include historical evidence to establish his ethos with the de Medici clan (although no evidence exists that Lorenzo di Medici ever read The Prince (Id. X)), Machiavelli, himself most likely a tactical fox, also could have purposefully written his treatise with broad and flexible pronouncements as to optimize The Prince’s application (and to hint at his own indispensability) in the unpredictable future of a di Medici rule. Harris concurs. Machiavelli’s “advocacy of acting in harmony with the times … results in the prescriptions for different types of government at different times” (Harris). Furthermore, Machiavelli was a product and victim of the vicissitudes of his times. For example, in 1512, “he was accused of complicity in an abortive conspiracy against the Medici, imprisoned and torture[d]” (Marriott IX). In 1513 he wrote The Prince. One may reasonably infer that Machiavelli wrote his treatise at “tiptoe stance” (King 177), straining to strike a balance between pragmatic examples and universal principals, for he desired to return to governmental service, yet was painfully (psychically and physically) aware of the consequences of faulty judgment or misconstrued remarks. Thus, perhaps The Prince, in lieu of being void for vagueness, epitomizes perspicacious diplomacy and deft persuasion and hence provides even a stronger example for analysis than its supporters envision or its critics acknowledge. One last wrinkle –just days ago several women asserted claims of sexual misconduct against Alabama Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore, whom Bannon heavily and successfully promoted in a hotly contested primary against Trump-backed Luther Strange (Bannon-WSJ). As the chances of Moore winning the general election decrease, some have accused Bannon of being “the partial architect of this mess” (Id.). An alternative explanation exists. Perhaps Bannon “wants Republicans to lose the Senate because it’s easier to rage in opposition” (Id.). If so, Bannon is just plain dumb – dumb, perhaps like a Machiavellian fox.Works CitedBannon, Steve. Interview by Charlie Rose. 60 Minutes, CBS, 17 Sept. 2017, .“Bannon’s Senate Minority.” Wall Street Journal, 11-12 Nov. 2017, p. A12.Borger, Julian. “Donald Trump Threatens to ‘Totally Destroy’ Korea in UN Speech.” The Guardian, 19 Sept. 2017, , Massimo. “Demolition Crew.” Time, 6 Nov. 2017, pp.22-23. Calamur, Krishnadev. “NATO Schmato.” The Atlantic, 21 July 2016, , Ta-Nehisi. “The First WHITE President.” The Atlantic, October 2017, pp.74-87.Davis Hirschfeld, Julie and Mark Landler. “President Puts ‘America First’ at Trade Talks.” New York Times, 11 Nov. 2017, p. 1.Deluga, Ronald J. “American Presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for Charismatic Leadership and Rated Performance.” Leadership Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3, Fall 2001, , Phil. “Machiavelli and the Global Compass: Ends and Means in Ethics and Leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 93, Spring 2010, DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-06030-y.Jacobus, Lee. A World of Ideas. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017.King, Dr. Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” 50 Essays. Samuel Cohen, editor, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Lewis, Paul. “Hillbilly Elegy Author on Barack Obama.” The Guardian, 25 Jan. 2017, , Niccoló. The Prince. Translated by W.K. Marriott, Dover, 2017.Major, Rafael. “A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 60, no.2, June 2007, , Larry. “Some Day My Prince Will Come.” , Tina. “Bannon Texts an Apocalyptic Warning for Trump.” Vanity Fair, 3 Oct. 2017, , Jeremy. “Bannon’s Blueprint for Revolt.” The New York Times, 11 Nov. 2017, p. A17.Public Record, , Sabrina. “Steve Bannon: The Machiavellian Bully Who Made Breitbart into Trump Pravda.” The Guardian, 20 Aug. 2016, .“Trump’s Pacific Trade Fear.” Wall Street Journal, 11-12 Nov. 2017, p. A12.“Trump Talks to America First in Asia.” Weekend Edition. National Public Radio, 11 Nov. 2017.“US Election: Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s Obscene Videotape.” BBC News, 9 Oct. 2016, . Von Drehle, David. “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?” Time, 2 Feb. 2017, , Benjamin. “The Trump Administration’s Dark View of Immigrants.” The New Yorker, 2 Feb. 2017, . ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download