Guilt by association is a common tactic. It was successfully employed against Obama as well, so it's interesting to see the crying about how unfair this is.
Ok, let's look at Bannon "fairly".
Is he an anti-semite? Is he a racist?
It's hard to separate his personal views from those he supports. I don't really know what his personal views are and there are certainly
many who know him who say he is neither racist nor anti-semitic nor mysogonist (according to media on both sides of the political spectrum). However, that same media also points out that you can't totally discount who he's chosen to associate himself with, how long and how intimately he has done so, and his willingness or lack of willingness do distance himself from some of the views
he has actively nurtured. If he chose to
play with fire in order to push his cause, he runs the risk of being burned or coming out of it tainted - and that is what this really is about.
Breitbart: Bannon took over running Brietbart when Andrew Brietbart passed away. Brietbart differs from traditional media in that it was founded and run by a charismatic figure - with a narrow focus, a distinct cause (anti-globalism, anti-traditional media) which they don't deny Unlike MSM including Fox - they've never retracted a claim, corrected an error or admitted to being wrong that I've found. There is no standard of ethics that binds them even minimally because their cause is more important and that cause is Trump. One prime example - their
refusal to support their reporter, Michelle Fields, who was grabbed and thrown to the ground by Trump's then campaign manager. Their reason?
They felt it would reflect badly on the Trump campaign. A number of staffers and reporters resigned over this including Fields, spokesman Kurt Bardella and their editor, Ben Shapiro.
That's what Bannon took over and remade into an instrument for the Trump Campaign. When he took over, there were
complaints from insiders, that the site took a major turn towards "Alt-right" ideology, more extremist views on white nationalism (which is nothing more than a codeword for white supremacist ideology).
Granted, at this point the charges of anti-semitism fall mainly into a he says/she says category (bitter divorce) and a kind of "guilt by association". But Bannon is playing with fire by skirting so close to legitimizing racist and anti-semitic memes in pursuit of his cause that questioning his views is certainly legitimate.
But "guilt by association" can't be completely disregarded. These aren't long ago relationships that he grew away from - these are relationships fostered right up until he left Breitbart to become Trump's campaign manager. These are also attitudes that found a home in Brietbart where, for once, they were NOT marginalized, but encouraged and protected when they COULD have been marginalized.
National Review has a spot on article on this (in fact, the best)
Steve Bannon Is Not a Nazi—But Let’s Be Honest about What He Represents:
The Left, with its endless accusations of “racism” and “xenophobia” and the like, has blurred the line between genuine racists and the millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump because of a desire for greater social solidarity and cultural consensus. It is not “racist” to want to strengthen the bonds uniting citizens to their country.
But the alt-right is not a “fabrication” of the media. The alt-right is a hodgepodge of philosophies that, at their heart, reject the fundamental principle that “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” The alt-right embraces an ethno-nationalism that has its counterparts in the worst of the European far-right: Golden Dawn in Greece, or Hungary’s Jobbik. (It’s no coincidence that Bannon spent time this summer praising “the women of the Le Pen family” on London radio, referring to the head of France’s National Front and her niece, a FN member of the French Parliament.) And while this by no means excuses smashing shop windows to protest a legitimate election result, as rioters spent the weekend doing in the Pacific Northwest, it’s also the case that not every Trump detractor is as devoid of cerebral matter as Lena Dunham. If ethnic and religious minorities are worried, it’s in part because Donald Trump and his intimates have spent the last several months winking at one of the ugliest political movements in America’s recent history.
Furthermore, as some on the left have been more attuned to than their conservative counterparts, the problem is not whether Bannon himself subscribes to a noxious strain of political nuttery; it’s that his de facto endorsement of it enables it to spread and to claim legitimacy, and that what is now a vicious fringe could, over time, become mainstream. The U.S. is not going to see pogroms or “internment camps” spring up in January. But countries require bonds of trust among citizens — including those citizens elected to be leaders. The Left gnawed at those bonds with its thoughtless commitment to cosmopolitan virtues. But the Right threatens to sever them entirely if it continues to court the proponents of ethno-nationalism, or trade in their rhetoric.
So...what exactly are Bannon's views?
My honest opinion, after reading a bunch more articles? Nah,
I don't think he's either anti-semitic or racist. But the fact that he is willing to traffic in those ideologies rather than repudiate them tells me he isn't much better then they are in the larger picture because he legitimizes them and ignores how dangerous they can become when legitimized.