Donald Trump and Steve Bannon: Real Threats More Serious Than Fake News Trafficked by Media

Photo by Michael Vadon | CC BY 2.0

Photo by Michael Vadon | CC BY 2.0

St. Petersburg, Russia.

The United States faces a threat. The danger is potentially existential. Imagine a force that could take the United States into ruinous wars with major powers. Simultaneously, this same threat promises to erode the cultural, regulatory, scientific and social infrastructure upon which the United States’ future prosperity depends. That’s precisely what the US faces under the presidency of Donald Trump, with the grey cardinal figure of Steve Bannon directing policy. The threats posed by Trump and Bannon are both domestic and foreign, and are deadly serious.

On the foreign policy front, Steve Bannon is a military buff. Many are, including myself. The difference, however, is that most who are fascinated by war become repulsed by the reality of it as adults. Not so with Bannon, an impulsive figure with a documented history of violent spousal abuse.   China’s footprint in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean is big and will get bigger. The good news is that China sees stability and mutually beneficial trade as the keys to its power. Essentially, this is an extension of the Middle Kingdom strategy present during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. That said, China is returning to its historic role as the world’s greatest power. It is becoming increasingly assertive in areas historically part of China (e.g., the South China Sea), yet is largely disinterested in imperial projection of hard power. Moreover, it has taken the lesson from the former Soviet Union that over investment in the military and Khrushchev adventurism abroad are the paths to ruin rather than stability. Yet China will not tolerate being policed by the United States. China will defend its national interests, and as its power grows, will not kowtow to US military power projected in the South China Sea. War with China, however, is neither inevitable nor desirable, as Bannon asserts on the former and by implication suggests with the latter. China wants trade, not war. A true “America First” policy would not militarily confront China, but would challenge it on the terrain of meeting its obligation to international labor agreements.

Furthermore, Trump and Bannon see Islamic fundamentalism as an existential threat to the US. Concerns regarding Iran should not be discounted, yet the wrong responses, including overreactions, can cause more harm than not. Bannon, a naval officer during the Iran hostage crisis under the Carter administration, still sees Iran as a direct threat to the United States. This view is shared by Sen. John McCain, who only half-jokingly in the past called for bombing Iran. Iran represents a challenge to Saudi (Wahhabi) dominance in the Middle East. It supports Syria’s Alawite Shia government as an ally that can host its natural gas transit pipeline to the European Union. Moreover, through Hezbollah, Iran supports opposition to Israel. While Iran clearly is no friend to the United States, over time, its mullahs have morphed into “mullahgarchs,” whose interests have become anchored as much in the desire to become rich by controlling key sectors of Iran’s economy as they are in imposing religious law and sponsoring Islamic revolution. Furthermore, its burgeoning youth have become increasingly secular in outlook, while increasingly frustrated with a “revolution” that failed to deliver prosperity or personal fulfillment. Iran’s youth are arguably the Middle East’s Islamic population most favorably disposed toward the United States.  If the United States backed off from rhetoric suggesting Iran was a potential target of possible US military action, its theocracy would increasingly lose legitimacy at home. In short, the United States should not play the villain from central casting that Iran uses to legitimize its domestic rule.

Meanwhile, Trump and Bannon’s wish for de-escalation of tensions with Russia is eminently sensible, albeit possibly arrived at for the wrong reasons. Whether the proposed détente was desired in order to dilute possibilities for thermonuclear conflict (a decidedly good reason), or to have an ally in “war on terror,” or because of some alt-right vision of Russia as a white Christian power that would be a US ally in war with China or Iran is unknown. Regardless, this one decent Trump/Bannon foreign policy objective already looks to have been sacrificed on the altar of the New Cold War.

President Trump and Steve Bannon’s ramped up military spending is not merely warmed over Reagan-era military Keynesianism. Increased military spending under Trump is revenue neutral under today’s Republican austerity economics. Trump and Bannon’s preparations for real war are paid for by gutting the cultural, scientific, regulatory and social infrastructure upon which our country’s future prosperity and stability depends. Slashing of social programs represents a reprise of Bourbon Monarch (“if they have no bread let them eat cake”) responses to poverty by GOP austerians overstuffed from their all-you-can-eat buffet of tax cuts. Meanwhile, public funding for the arts and humanities is already miniscule. Trump and Bannon’s proposed budget would return us to a medieval state where they are almost entirely funded by rich patrons, whose tastes will dictate content. Furthermore, gutting the Environmental Protection Agency is ill advised. Regulators, already stretched thin, struggle to inspect leaky oil pipelines. Particularly troubling are the proposed cuts to science. Real threats, such as a future influenza bug, or other viruses emerging from rapidly eroding rainforests, are very real and could kill millions. Medical research and public health infrastructure are essential for engaging these real dangers. Moreover, our future prosperity depends on the innovations born from basic research, which, in the US, is mostly publicly funded. Public funding of basic research delivered the internet, microprocessor chips for personal computers and most of the technology in our iPhones. Gutting research spending means the next disruptive innovations enhancing productivity and transforming our economy will likely not be created.

These potential “hot wars” on China and Iran, along with wars on culture, science, the environment and the poor can be ill afforded. There is a decidedly strong threat to the United States, however, it resides (when not at Trump Tower or Mar-a-Lago) at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue more than it does abroad.


More articles by:

Jeffrey Sommers is Professor of Political Economy & Public and Senior Fellow, Institute of World Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is Visiting Professor at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga. His book on the Baltics (with Charles Woolfson), is The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model

Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography
Kathy Deacon
Me, My Parents and Red Scares Long Gone
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Rexless Abandon
Andrew Levine
Good Enemies Are Hard To Find: Therefore Worry
Jim Kavanagh
What to Expect From a Trump / Kim Summit
Ron Jacobs
Trump and His Tariffs
Joshua Frank
Drenched in Crude: It’s an Oil Free For All, But That’s Not a New Thing
Gary Leupp
What If There Was No Collusion?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Bernard Fall Dies on the Street Without Joy
Robert Fantina
Bad to Worse: Tillerson, Pompeo and Haspel
Brian Cloughley
Be Prepared, Iran, Because They Want to Destroy You
Richard Moser
What is Organizing?
Scott McLarty
Working Americans Need Independent Politics
Rohullah Naderi
American Gun Violence From an Afghan Perspective
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Why Trump’s Tariff Travesty Will Not Re-Industrialize the US
Ted Rall
Democrats Should Run on Impeachment
Robert Fisk
Will We Ever See Al Jazeera’s Investigation Into the Israel Lobby?
Kristine Mattis
Superunknown: Scientific Integrity Within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes
John W. Whitehead
Say No to “Hardening” the Schools with Zero Tolerance Policies and Gun-Toting Cops
Edward Hunt
UN: US Attack On Syrian Civilians Violated International Law
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Outside History
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Long Hard Road
Victor Grossman
Germany: New Faces, Old Policies
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the US Invasion
Binoy Kampmark
Amazon’s Initiative: Digital Assistants, Home Surveillance and Data
Chuck Collins
Business Leaders Agree: Inequality Hurts The Bottom Line
Jill Richardson
What We Talk About When We Talk About “Free Trade”
Eric Lerner – Jay Arena
A Spark to a Wider Fire: Movement Against Immigrant Detention in New Jersey
Negin Owliaei
Teachers Deserve a Raise: Here’s How to Fund It
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What to Do at the End of the World? Interview with Climate Crisis Activist, Kevin Hester
Kevin Proescholdt
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke Attacks America’s Wilderness
Franklin Lamb
Syrian War Crimes Tribunals Around the Corner
Beth Porter
Clean Energy is Calling. Will Your Phone Company Answer?
George Ochenski
Zinke on the Hot Seat Again and Again
Lance Olsen
Somebody’s Going to Extremes
Robert Koehler
Breaking the Ice
Pepe Escobar
The Myth of a Neo-Imperial China
Graham Peebles
Time for Political Change and Unity in Ethiopia
Terry Simons
10 American Myths “Refutiated”*
Thomas Knapp
Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
Louis Proyect
The 2018 Socially Relevant Film Festival
David Yearsley
Keaton’s “The General” and the Pernicious Myths of the Heroic South