• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Real Lessons From the Debate Between David Frum and Steve Bannon

Last November 2 the Toronto-based group Munk Debates organized a well-publicized debate between David Frum and Steve Bannon titled “Be it resolved, the future of western politics is populist not liberal…” [2] Frankly, I didn’t care about the debate so I will not refer to its content because both debaters at this point in time don’t have anything new to contribute in my view. Also, the Munk Debates are just an elitist show of intellectual entertainment for a select privileged group of people, or in Frum’s exclusivist words, for “the learned, the preeminent, and the notorious.”

However, I read very carefully the article by David Frum in The Atlantic, “The Real Lesson of My Debate With Steve Bannon.” [1] Not having attended the debate I was curious about what he had to say about it.

I found out that apparently he “lost” the debate, or, as he put it, “bungled it” to Bannon by some questionable voting system that the organizers had set up. That outcome must have been quite a surprise to usually self-confident Frum who saw it necessary to write about what he had learned; and he did write about …sour grapes in both a self-effacing and unrepentant way.

My reading about the debate did teach me some lessons, and they come from two specific issues that I question in Frum’s article.

First, he dismisses the relevance of the protests about validating someone with the reputation of Trump strategist Steve Bannon by bringing him to the debate. I was one that signed a petition against his coming to Toronto, and I would have been protesting if I were there.

Frum wrote that “never before…had [the Munks Debates] ignited the fierce controversy that exploded around the scheduled debate between Bannon and me”, but he doesn’t consider the reasons why.

He goes on to write that people wanted to “shut down the debate by force and threat. They tried to block the entrance to the debate venue, then harassed attendees as they sought to enter.” The disruption delayed “the start time by 45 minutes”, which, he concludes, must have contributed to losing the debate.

But he does not stop there. He writes five paragraphs making his point against the attempt to cancel the event. In his words, “Forceful interruption of public events is almost always wrong. If I see you reading a book that I dislike, I have no right to grab it from you. In a free society, there can be no equivalent of the Saudi religious police…”

I will ignore the offensive analogy between my protest and the actions of the “Saudi religious police.” But I cannot ignore the oversimplification and the inane analogy of stopping someone from reading a book.

Protesting someone like Bannon is only part of the issue – albeit an important part. The other part that Mr. Frum cannot even conceive is that in his “free society” there are those who have large financial resources like Munk Debates that can afford to bring the Frum-Bannon pair to discuss their side of the worldview, and there are those like the “protesters” that cannot put up an exclusive show to promote the other side of the worldview.

In the fantasy free society that Frum imagines he lives in maybe he does not want to “grab” the book he dislikes from his opponents. But in the “free society” we really live in, his opponents don’t even have the resources to publish the book that will get his reaction. Frum must also be used to the idea that if protesters cannot afford to rent a “symphony hall” for a debate, they will use the public streets or any other free venue.

The second issue that I question about Frum’s pretentious article is something that is glaring for its absence; and I doubt that he would have addressed it in the debate. That is the fact that he does not even recognize his own contribution he made during his career to the populist ideology that he now blames on Steve Bannon and the current U.S. administration.

During his career, not just as a conservative but also like one who sold the worst brand of it as a speechwriter that excused all actions of former U.S. president George W. Bush, Frum provided his thinking and the words that created the extreme conservative ideology that has degenerated in the thinking of the current U.S. presidency that he so vehemently criticizes. He even quotes W. Bush once, “today’s ‘populists’ will follow their predecessors into what President George W. Bush so aptly called ‘history’s graveyard of discarded lies.’” Of course we know he is quoting himself.

Frum correctly declares that he spent his “life as a conservative” but he tries hard to re-define himself as a milder “liberal in the broad sense” wielding a “liberal project” in opposition to the “populist politics” that he uses as “the polite term for the politics of Donald Trump and the many Little Trumps in power or competing for power across our Earth”. I can only wonder whom he has in mind.

Sounding like his own eulogy, Frum grandiosely romanticizes that he “sought to conserve the free societies that began to be built in the 18th century.” But he betrays his real political position by putting together in the same sentence the “challenges to those free societies” from Communists and Marxists, Islamists and now populists. That is his way of scoring a point on his debate contender.

Frum is credited with coining the expression “Axis of Evil” in reference to Iran, Iraq and “North Korea”, extensively repeated by W. Bush during his administration, of which we are reminded by the new expression “Troika of Tyranny” recently used by U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton in the current Trump administration in reference to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

More than an ideologue, I consider David Frum like a political technician. He is good at his technical skill with words to be used by others, just like an electrician who uses his/her skill to facilitate the task of the executioners. Just to turn around and accuse the executioner.

Finally, Frum cannot get away from his legacy, and he should use the title of his book “How We Got Here” published in 2000 with a question mark at the end as a personal question for today. I don’t think he will find the answer unless he learns to take some responsibility. But he has not learned that lesson.

Notes

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/bannon-frum-munk-debate-what-really-happened/574867/

[2] https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/The-Rise-of-Populism

 

More articles by:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

May 22, 2019
T.J. Coles
Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services
Thomas Knapp
A US War on Iran Would be Evil, Stupid, and Self-Damaging
Johnny Hazard
Down in Juárez
Mark Ashwill
Albright & Powell to Speak at Major International Education Conference: What Were They Thinking?
Binoy Kampmark
The Victory of Small Visions: Morrison Retains Power in Australia
Laura Flanders
Can It Happen Here?
Dean Baker
The Money in the Trump/Kushner Middle East Peace Plan
Manuel Perez-Rocha – Jen Moore
How Mining Companies Use Excessive Legal Powers to Gamble with Latin American Lives
George Ochenski
Playing Politics With Coal Plants
Ted Rall
Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
May 21, 2019
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Locked in a Cold War Time Warp
Roger Harris
Venezuela: Amnesty International in Service of Empire
Patrick Cockburn
Trump is Making the Same Mistakes in the Middle East the US Always Makes
Robert Hunziker
Custer’s Last Stand Meets Global Warming
Lance Olsen
Renewable Energy: the Switch From Drill, Baby, Drill to Mine, Baby, Mine
Dean Baker
Ady Barkan, the Fed and the Liberal Funder Industry
Manuel E. Yepe
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson in Ethics and Morality
Jan Oberg
Trump’s Iran Trap
David D’Amato
What is Anarchism?
Nicky Reid
Trump’s War In Venezuela Could Be Che’s Revenge
Elliot Sperber
Springtime in New York
May 20, 2019
Richard Greeman
The Yellow Vests of France: Six Months of Struggle
Manuel García, Jr.
Abortion: White Panic Over Demographic Dilution?
Robert Fisk
From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, Western States are All Too Happy to Avoid Culpability for War Crimes
Tom Clifford
From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Persian Gulf
Chandra Muzaffar
Targeting Iran
Valerie Reynoso
The Violent History of the Venezuelan Opposition
Howard Lisnoff
They’re Just About Ready to Destroy Roe v. Wade
Eileen Appelbaum
Private Equity is a Driving Force Behind Devious Surprise Billings
Binoy Kampmark
Bob Hawke: Misunderstood in Memoriam
J.P. Linstroth
End of an era for ETA?: May Basque Peace Continue
Weekend Edition
May 17, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Trump and the Middle East: a Long Record of Personal Failure
Joan Roelofs
“Get Your Endangered Species Off My Bombing Range!”
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Slouching Towards Tehran
Paul Street
It’s Even More Terrible Than You Thought
Rob Urie
Grabby Joe and the Problem of Environmental Decline
Ajamu Baraka
2020 Elections: It’s Militarism and the Military Budget Stupid!
Andrew Levine
Springtime for Biden and Democrats
Richard Moser
The Interlocking Crises: War and Climate Chaos
Ron Jacobs
Uncle Sam Needs Our Help Again?
Eric Draitser
Elizabeth Warren Was Smart to Tell FOX to Go to Hell
Peter Bolton
The Washington Post’s “Cartel of the Suns” Theory is the Latest Desperate Excuse for Why the Coup Attempt in Venezuela has Failed
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Analysis of Undecideds Suggests Biden’s Support May be Exaggerated
Peter Lackowski
Eyewitness in Venezuela: a 14-year Perspective
Karl Grossman
Can Jerry Nadler Take Down Trump?
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail