Does Steve Bannon Buy His Own...Bunk?

By David Corn  July 16, 2022

Steve Bannon after departing federal court in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2021. Alex Brandon/AP

Do they believe their own BS?

That’s the question I constantly wrestle with. All the crap and disinformation the Trumpers hurl—do they truly believe it? The election was stolen. Thousands of “mules” cast fraudulent ballots across the country. The Deep State is conspiring against us. Do they think any of this is real? When Trump insists that he won by millions of votes, do he and his amen chorus of cultish zombies consider that an accurate description of reality? I go back and forth on this. Clearly, millions of his devotees, including the 2,000 or so Trump terrorists who attacked the Capitol, accept this as the truth from on high. But does Trump know he’s lying to them? As a pathological narcissist, he might be incapable of believing he lost. Or he might not fully recognize the difference between a lie and the truth. My hunch is that he conjures up whatever line best serves his interest of the moment and then comes to believe it, for the only reality that counts is the one that benefits him. He’s a con man who lives the con. He gets high on his own supply. But I don’t dismiss the possibilities that he is a delusional psychopath or a hyper-cynical liar. Or both.

A scoop this week from my Mother Jones colleague Dan Friedman got me thinking about all this. He obtained an audio recording of a conversation Steve Bannon had with several associates on October 31, 2020, during which Bannon noted that, come election night, Trump would declare victory, whether or not he had won. “As it sits here today,” Bannon said, “at 10 or 11 o’clock Trump’s gonna walk in the Oval, tweet out, ‘I’m the winner. Game over. Suck on that.'” Without clear results, without any evidence of fraud, Trump, according to his former chief White House strategist, was going to claim he had won. Which is what he did.

Friedman’s story was significant in that it showed that Trump, per Bannon, had a corrupt intention from the start. But there were other interesting parts of this conversation. Bannon predicted that 20,000 to 25,000 antifa activists would be descending on Washington on election night to wreak havoc. This supposedly would include surrounding the White House. Moreover, antifa, he said, was in cahoots with the Democrats as part of plan to discredit Trump: “What they want to show is that Trump can't govern the country. So what they're trying to show is that Trump's a fascist, he's a dictator, he's no better than [Chinese President] Xi, he's just declaring victory, and these kids are just trying to protest the fascism, right? That's why they're antifa. So, that whole demonstration is to show the rest of the country, Trump can't govern, and we're not gonna let him govern.”

This is a favorite talking point of the Trump right: The Democrats and antifa are colluding to destroy Trump and America. And it’s absurd. On election night, there was no mass assembling of antifa in Washington. One hundred and fifty or so of the far-left activists marched through the streets shouting “Fuck Trump!” and “Fuck Biden!”—hardly the conduct of Democratic Party allies. The notion that Biden Democrats are closely conspiring with antifa radicals is ludicrous. Is Bannon really that paranoid? Did Republicans who claimed antifa instigated the January 6 insurrectionist assault on the Capitol believe that nonsense? Or were they knowingly spreading disinformation to deflect attention from Trump’s culpability?

The right’s fixation with antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters is just plain silly. Look at the story that emerged this week about a Minnesotan Trump fan named Dennis Molla. In September 2020, he claimed his garage was burned down by antifa-like thugs who spray-painted the anarchy symbol, “BLM,” and “Biden 2020” on its doors. Fox News, of course, afforded his story prominent coverage. But what self-respecting anarchist would be caught dead graffiti-ing a garage with “Biden 2020”? Only in the world of far-right paranoia are anarchists scheming with Joe Biden. On Thursday, news outlets reported that Molla has been indicted for allegedly running an insurance scam in which he applied this graffiti to his garage and then torched it. It was fake news.

Throughout the 2020 campaign, Trump fear-mongered about antifa, tying the group to socialistic Democrats and asserting they all wanted to turn America into a far-left hellhole. A Biden victory, he warned, would lead to antifa ransacking suburban America. Billionaire George Soros, a funder of Democratic and progressive causes, Trump alleged, was financing antifa. (Needless to say, this was a lie.) In one of the weirder moments of a weird campaign, Trump told Fox host Laura Ingraham that antifa-like forces were controlling Biden. “People that you’ve never heard of, people that are in the dark shadows,” he said, were pulling Biden’s strings. He went on: “There are people that are on the streets, there are people that are controlling the streets.”

And there was more, Trump said: “We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend. And in the plane, it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that.” He added, “A lot of the people were on the plane to do big damage.” When Ingraham asked Trump to elaborate, he said the matter was under investigation, adding, “I’ll tell you sometime.” Well, he never did.

Soros-backed antifa extremists manipulating Biden, controlling the streets, targeting the suburbs, and engaging in paramilitary operations? This is the swill Trump was peddling. It’s not much different from the old Tea Party conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was a secret, Kenya-born Muslim who was purposefully trying to destroy the US economy so he could impose a totalitarian regime (with concentration camps!). In 2009 and 2010, you could hear that garbage nightly on Glenn Beck’s Fox show. This type of slop has long been a fixture of the right. But in the Trump era it has been embraced and promulgated by Trump himself and the leaders of the Trumpified GOP and conservative movement.

So back to Bannon, whose trial on contempt of Congress charges is set to begin on Monday. (Bannon was indicted after refusing to answer questions from the House January 6 committee.) This guy is no dummy. He made a bundle in the private sector. He helped elect a much-despised political novice—who was caught boasting he had committed sexual assault—to the White House. Yet in this pre-election meeting—which involved Bannon and a half-dozen supporters of Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese mogul for whom he has worked—Bannon was promoting this dark, far-right fantasy of a diabolical alliance between Biden Democrats and antifa. Was this just for effect? Or did he really fear far-left hordes were plotting with Democrats to annihilate America? Does it matter? Should we care? I think we should, for there is another possible explanation: This is all projection, and Bannon is looking at antifa through a what-would-I-do? lens. That is, if he were a Democrat, he would sure as hell hook up with violent extremists to thwart democracy and triumph politically. (And he did encourage the violent extremists of January 6.) This stated fear—whether concocted or genuinely (though irrationally) experienced—is a tell, an indication of Bannon’s own desires and intentions. The same applies to Trump and the rest of their gang. That makes their paranoia, real or manufactured, something to fear.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

In our last contest, I asked, “Should we just give up and call this feature 'What Marjorie Taylor Greene Said This Week (and Lauren Boebert, Too)'?” We could just as easily name this section, “What Lauren Boebert Said This Week (and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Too).” A few days ago, Boebert, the QAnonish GOP Republican from Colorado, was on Bannon’s podcast, and she complained about liberals who advocate for the separation of church and state: “If there really is this separation of church and state like they believe it means, well then what is [Rep.] Ilhan [Omar] doing with her hijab on? Why is she able to go in there with that?”

This comment breaks the meter for stupidity. Is there anyone who says that under the separation of church and state doctrine a person cannot wear a cross when entering a federal building? Or a yarmulke? You can’t park a car with a “Jesus Saves” bumper sticker in a congressional parking lot? (Or one that reads “Jesus Saves. I Spend”?) Separating church and state is not about limiting the choice of an individual but restricting government promotion or endorsement of religion. This is rather basic stuff. By the way, why is Boebert so obsessed with Omar?

But Boebert doesn’t win the crown this week. The other contenders all were related to the awful story of the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and became pregnant. Because Ohio has criminalized abortion, she had to travel to Indiana to obtain an abortion. After Biden referred to this case, the right went nuts and claimed the tale was untrue. The Wall Street Journal editorial page blared, “There’s no evidence the girl exists.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who truly should stay clear of stories about sexual misconduct, tweeted, “Another lie. Anyone surprised?” By now, you probably know that this tragic story was indeed true. On Wednesday, a man was arrested and charged with the rape. Jordan deleted his tweet—without issuing a correction. The Wall Street Journal­ attached a disingenuous non-apology to its editorial.

The true dumbassery came when Republicans and conservatives had to react to the news that this episode was real—that the GOP, with no-exception abortion bans in some states, was imposing forced-births on 10-year-olds. In Ohio, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost insisted this girl “did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.” Yet Ohio’s nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission noted that under the GOP-enacted state ban on abortions after six weeks, she would not have qualified for a legal abortion. (About one in three women learn they are pregnant after six weeks.) Yost was either ignorant of the abortion ban he supported or lying to make the Ohio law seem less draconian.

The winner, though, is Catherine Glenn Foster, the president of Americans United for Life. Appearing before a House committee, she was asked by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) if a 10-year-old “would choose to carry a baby.” She replied, “In the Ohio case, the Ohio attorney general said that abortion would have been justified.” That’s what Yost said, but he was wrong. Foster added, “I believe it would probably impact her life and so therefore it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion...If a 10-year-old became pregnant as the result of a rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion. So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

Whut? An abortion is an abortion regardless of the reason for the abortion. This was illogical double-talk. As noted above, this young girl’s abortion was not allowed under Ohio law. Foster was just afraid to admit the horrible truth that the laws she enthusiastically supports would lead to such travesties as compelling a 10-year-old to give birth. Under her standard that an abortion in such circumstances is not an abortion, what age would this be true for? A raped 14-year-old? An 18-year-old? Why not a 22-year-old? Here was a champion of abortion bans lying to dodge a horrendous consequence of her success—and doing a poor job of it.

Speaking of extremists, watch this video from a Christian nationalism conference, unless you don’t want to be frightened:

The Mailbag

Write about sex—or the war on sex—and you can expect to get a lot of spicy emails. Sharon Daly emailed:

You misrepresented the Catholic Church’s position on sex. The truth is bad enough. While the Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception, it recognizes the value of sex within a male/female marriage to unify the couple and solidify their love. Vatican roulette! 

Dell Erwin had a similar point:

As a former evangelical (many decades), with friends still in it, I think it’s incorrect to say they mainly believe sex is for procreation, like Catholics. They definitely say they don’t believe in premarital sex despite many practicing it. 

I was referring to theology not practice. As for the Catholic position on sex (no pun there), I wrote, “The Catholic Church insists sex should only occur with the intent to breed.” For that assertion, I relied on the National Catholic Reporter, which tells us, “Catholics believe that sexuality has a fundamental purpose, decreed by God: procreation...The Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave sin to deliberately separate sexuality from procreation, because the latter is its most essential purpose.” The NCR does note that sex can be for pleasure, but only within the context of possible conception: “The Catholic view is that complete sexual fulfillment (including pleasure, which is not forbidden!) must occur in the act of love with one’s spouse of the opposite sex: that one is committed to for life, and that the couple must be open to life and possible conception. Sexual acts engaged in apart from this circumstance are wrong and sinful.”

Harvey Berman wrote in:

I am a psychiatrist. I believe that the sexual puritans of the world deny the advances of modern medical science which enable us to effectively uncouple procreation from sexual pleasure. Years ago, there may have been reason to fear the extinction of the human race if people did not maximize their reproductive potential. In 2022, there is no reason to fear this.

People are endowed with organs which produce sexual pleasure. They are there for a reason. Since procreation does not require having sex on a regular basis, or even any sex at all beyond a certain age, the purpose of these organs obviously extends beyond the biological imperative to assure the survival of the species. Yes, every person is genetically hard wired to want to enjoy sex for its own sake. Teaching people to eschew sex outside of procreation accomplishes nothing other than making someone feel guilty about doing something which is universally regarded as pleasurable by people everywhere.

While it would be an act of courage, I'd like to see some political leaders come right out and say directly that they support people's right to pursue sexual pleasure with any consenting partner and believe that the government should stay out of Americans' bedrooms.

I’d like to see that, too. Imagine a political ad that ends, “I approve this message, and I approve consenting adults having sex for fun.”

Karen Martin shared this:

I will never, never fathom why some people are concerned about the sex lives of others. Live and let live. Mind your own business, please! As for abortion, I had four failed pregnancies. One was a rupture of an ectopic pregnancy that caused the loss of about 20 percent of my blood and required emergency surgery. Again, mind your own business

Mechelle Schneider responded to my remembrance of covering the Iran-contra hearings of 1988:

Reading about your take on Oliver North certainly brought back crazy memories. At the time of the hearings, he was a neighbor of my sister and brother-in-law in Great Falls, Virginia. Mostly they were livid about having to maneuver the press vehicles in order to get to work or return home. At our Christmas visit, we stopped and took a picture of the infamous security gate, laughing because it really didn’t offer much security. But following the hearings, my brother-in-law was sent from his usual position at CIA to NSC to help in resurrecting the shredding documents. Meanwhile afterwards, Oliver North did very well financially and moved to a bigger and better location. 

Darn, I wish I had known your brother back in those days. Sounds like he could have been a good source. I had forgotten about the security fence that North paid for with funds generated by the Iran-contra arms sales. He tried to cover up that transaction. Even Republican members of Congress slammed him for diverting those government funds for his own personal use. Yet despite his crookedness, he still became a right-wing hero. That tells you something about the right wing.

There was a lot of agreement with my critique of a Mitt Romney article in the Atlantic. But Scott Thorne begged to differ on one aspect:

I have to disagree with your interpretation of Mitt Romney's statement if the [quote from the article] below is correct:

“What accounts for the blithe dismissal of potentially cataclysmic threats? The left thinks the right is at fault for ignoring climate change and the attacks on our political system. The right thinks the left is the problem for ignoring illegal immigration and the national debt. But wishful thinking happens across the political spectrum. More and more, we are a nation in denial.”

The way I read it, Romney says the right is at fault for ignoring climate change and the attacks on our system. He is not saying "the left thinks the right ignores climate change and the attack on the political system.” He is saying the left thinks the right at fault for ignoring it. As I read it, he acknowledges that the right ignores both problems much as the left ignores the problems of illegal immigration and the national debt (which the right ignores whenever they control the purse strings as was shown during the first two years of the Trump administration, as well as during the Bush years, but that is another issue). Sen. Romney is engaging in whataboutism and false equivalency, but he does, at least from my reading, agree that the right has ignored climate change and the undermining of our democracy.

My point was that Romney focused on the left blaming the right rather than on the damage caused by the right denying climate change and dismissing or downplaying January 6 and Trump’s war on democracy. If Romney does believe the GOP is ignoring climate change, let’s see him join the Democrats in backing initiatives to address this emergency.

Paul Goode emailed:

I came away thinking that Romney was the one in denial—his “yearning” (I think that was the word) for a Reagan-like figure to unite the country being the ultimate denial. Well, neither a Reagan nor a Franklin Roosevelt could unite us—not when Romney’s party is invested in disunity. Not even Abraham Lincoln could unite the country when enough people did not want unity under any circumstance that required consensus and power-sharing. That’s where we are. We will have as much unity as the Republican Party wants. Period. 

Sue Wollack wrote in:

Thank you David for calling out Romney on using a false equivalency between the Republicans and Dem to justify his positions. Time is running out for the Dems to get their act together and calling out more of this Republican BS and the huge difference between the parties is the essential message. To that end, I would particularly like the Dems to put the Republicans feet to the fire by proposing legislation that would provide women who are denied abortions with free day care, health care, diapers etc. How many Republicans would step up to support that legislation?

There was no mail this week for Moxie. She was very disappointed. Speaking of which...

MoxieCam™

“Why are we here?”

“Just to get a few shots.”

“Will it hurt?”

“Not at all.”

“Friends don’t lie.”

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

July 12, 2022: It’s about sex; Iran-contra flashback: the day reality died; a dangerous state Supreme Court decision; and more.

July 9, 2022: Why did the Atlantic enable Mitt Romney’s dangerous both-sidesism?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene, again); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

July 2, 2022: Mark Meadows: one helluva liar; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ali Alexander); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 28, 2022: The lessons from the right’s 50-year-long crusade to limit the freedom of women; the end of Ozark; and more.

June 25, 2022: Hooray for the Trump Republicans who saved the nation—or not?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Clarence Thomas); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 21, 2022: Is Trump’s GOP getting even crazier?; George Carlin and the American Dream; Alexei Navalny’s nightmare; and more.

June 18, 2022: Is Elon Musk more dangerous than Peter Thiel?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Lauren Boebert, again); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 14, 2022: From Watergate to Trump: Does the system really work?; a thrilling performance by Paul McCartney; how The Staircase apprehends its viewers; and more.

June 11, 2022: In the room where it happened: covering the January 6 committee’s hearing; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jesse Watters and others); my proudest moment in journalism; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.