FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

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:

January 17, 2019
Stan Cox
That Green Growth at the Heart of the Green New Deal? It’s Malignant
David Schultz
Trump vs the Constitution: Why He Cannot Invoke the Emergencies Act to Build a Wall
Paul Cochrane
Europe’s Strategic Humanitarian Aid: Yemen vs. Syria
Tom Clifford
China: An Ancient Country, Getting Older
Greg Grandin
How Not to Build a “Great, Great Wall”
Ted Rall
Our Pointless, Very American Culture of Shame
John G. Russell
Just Another Brick in the Wall of Lies
Patrick Walker
Referendum 2020: A Green New Deal vs. Racist, Classist Climate Genocide
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Uniting for a Green New Deal
Matt Johnson
The Wall Already Exists — In Our Hearts and Minds
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Flailing will get More Desperate and More Dangerous
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Three
January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail