Seriously, Though . . .

 

Seriously, though, Steve Bannon really has declared war on Elon Musk, vowing to oust him from the White House without, of course, giving any explanation as to how.

I read with some interest this article, comparing their feud to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.  Who do you root for when two really bad guys go to war against each other?

The author says that, just as we backed Iraq because we saw them as the saner player, now we should back Bannon on the theory that he is less evil than Musk.  His argument is that at least Bannon has principles, even if they are bad ones.  "Bannon has ideological goals; Musk has personal, vaguely psychosexual desires."  Bannon is consistent.  Musk changes his mind every five minutes.  Bannon's ideas might have a non-toxic, "domesticated" version.  "Musk is just a neurodivergent Bond villain."

Well, I disagree with the assumption that Bannon is any less evil than Musk.  I think they are about equal.  I generally prefer an opportunist with no principles to someone with unrelentingly bad principles.  At least the opportunist can be rational if it is in his interests.  Someone who changes his mind every five minutes is unlikely to have the perseverance to do the sort of damage that an inflexible ideologue can do.  Bannon openly calls himself a "Leninist" and has declared his wish to burn it all down.

So if the choice is which is the bigger ideological threat, I would say Bannon.

But in their feud I would still back Bannon over Musk any day of the week for a simple reason.  Bannon is nowhere near as powerful as Musk.  

Musk's assets have been estimated at over $300 billion.  Bannon's are worth a measly $48 million.  Musk controls the algorithms of hundreds of millions of followers on social media.  Bannon influences through the 44th most popular podcast on Apple.  When Rudy Giuliani reached a $150 million settlement of the defamation case by Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, many people wondered if there was a financial backer paying them off.  Musk is an obvious suspect. We know it can't be Bannon, since the amount exceeds Bannon's entire fortune.   Musk could also afford to pay off $787 million defamation settlement by Fox News or even the $1.5 billion judgment against Alex Jones.  The amounts are pocket change to him.  Bannon can't.  Bannon can be sued for defamation if he tells a sufficiently outrageous lie on his podcast.  Under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Musk is immune from suit for any lies his algorithms deliberately promote.  As suggested above, Musk may very well have the wealth to neuter our defamation laws against any right-wing source by paying their judgment. 

And, of course, Musk has Trump's ear.  Bannon does not.

All of which amounts to saying I am all for Bannon's crusade to take down Musk.  I just think he is fighting with a plastic spoon against a man armed with an entire arsenal.