Keep an eye on Bannon

No More Mister Nice Blog observes that Steve Bannon has been maintaining a pretty high media profile lately, and speculates that this might foreshadow a run for political office.  It's a possibility we need to consider carefully.

On fringe-right websites, I've already seen a few Trumpanzees (among those disappointed in Trump's capitulations on issues like DACA) talking about Bannon as a 2020 Presidential candidate.  Such talk probably isn't widespread on the far right.....yet.  But as Trump continues to compromise and be generally ineffectual, Bannon may well be able to position himself as a new rallying point.

If so, we can't rule out him getting nominated.  2016 exposed the Republican establishment as utter dithering cowards when tasked with stopping a determined demagogue.  And the party will enter 2020 either with a pitifully-failed Trump still at its head, or with Pence as President and the party disastrously divided in the aftermath of impeachment.  Either case would create an opening for someone like Bannon.  He could sell himself to the Trumpanzees as the true believer, the embodiment of the Trumpism which Trump himself failed to uphold when the chips were down.

If you're thinking that someone as extreme and obnoxious as Bannon could never be a plausible Presidential candidate, think again.  Trump is even more personally obnoxious and identified himself with comparably extreme positions during the primaries.  Bannon has never held elective office, but his stint in Trump's administration and the fact that he served for seven years as a US Navy officer are better qualifications than Trump could claim in 2016.  On election day in 2020 he'll be 66, slightly younger than both candidates in 2016.  His position at Breitbart will allow him to stay in the limelight, at least among the kind of people who support Trump today.

If nominated, could he win?  I think it's unlikely.  Trump's "victory" was a fluke dependent on the coming together of three factors -- vote-suppression laws (it's now virtually certain that this cost Hillary Wisconsin at least), Russian interference, and the distorting effect of the Electoral College (never forget, Hillary got three million more actual votes).  Absent any one of these factors, Hillary would be in the White House today.

Whether vote-suppression laws will still be as big a factor in 2020 depends on whether Democrats can regain control of some swing-state legislatures in 2018.  That's hard to predict at this point.  Putin is unlikely to want a fervent nationalist like Bannon in office unless he gives clear signals of willingness to cater to Russian interests -- and it's remotely possible that by 2020 US authorities will have done something about the vulnerability of our election systems to hacking (don't laugh, it's possible).  The Electoral College will still be in place, but there is a way of neutralizing that problem without a Constitutional amendment if enough state legislatures get on board.  To understand the importance of the latter point, remember that the Democrat won the popular vote for President in every election since 1992, with the sole exception of 2004 (which was a Republican incumbent running for re-election in wartime, and still a very narrow win).  If the President were chosen by popular vote, Republicans would be practically shut out.

But if 2016 taught us one thing, it's the danger of complacency.  Everyone, including me, thought Trump couldn't possibly win.  President Bannon would be essentially President Trump with brains and a real ideological commitment.  It's hard to imagine a more dangerous combination.