Eric Metaxas Plans to Interview Steve Bannon – Yawn?

What’s going on? The New Yorker planned to interview former Donald Trump strategist, alt-right leader, and nativist Steve Bannon at one of their events and social media erupted with protest and cancellations of subscriptions. Within hours, the magazine canceled Bannon’s talk and said sorry.

In reaction on a recent segment of his radio show, Trump cheerleader and evangelical author Eric Metaxas extended an interview invitation to Bannon and not much happened. On that same show, Metaxas hosted alt-right queen Ann Coulter. Mr. Metaxas has had Ms. Coulter on his show for friendly interviews before.

Metaxas considers Brit alt-right poster girl Katie Hopkins his “hero.” Milo Yiannopolis has been his friendly guest as well.

These are not interviews which challenge the guests on their alt-rightness.

Obviously, it is his show, he can do what he wants. I am just surprised that there is no backlash or consequence for going full alt-right. Mainstream Christians will continue going on the show as if nothing else is going on in the culture.

Nothing to see here.

Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at

[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]

Image – Fair use

14 thoughts on “Eric Metaxas Plans to Interview Steve Bannon – Yawn?”

  1. Mainstream Christians will continue going on the show as if nothing else is going on in the culture.

    Republicans in Congress have the same affliction about what’s going on in the White House. The affliction between the 2 groups may be related. MAGA – Making Afflictions Great Again

  2. My hope is that the lack of backlash is due to so few people following Metaxas these days. The other issue is that those who do follow him have been watching Metaxas fawn all over Trump and the other Trump Evangelical courtiers at the Big Eva voting bloc, payola White House parties. They are thick as thieves. When Metaxas isn’t writing homages to Trump he is partying with the hardcore Christian Nationalist set. You can’t help but see his Alt-Right roots showing.

  3. I’d be interested to hear how you define “alt-right”, Warren. That would lend some clarity to exactly what you are suggesting/thinking.

      1. That’s precisely why I was asking, as those figures seems worlds apart in some respects. Personally I think the primary feature of “alt-right” is white nationalism, in which case I think Ann Coulter probably fits, but Bannon (economic nationalist) and Yiannopolis (aimless provocateur) do not, despite their appropriation of the term. I think Vox Day is pretty much the grotesque model of the racist alt-right.

        1. I think your scope is a bit limited honestly. For instance, there are outright Nazis (Richard Spencer), Incels and religious extremists who would be parts of that sphere as well. Alt-Right generally implies an alternative right wing position on typical right wing views. The traditional right wing has views on economics, religion, sexuality, social views and so on, the Alt-Right offers an alternative but also right wing positions on those topics.

          1. Well, then I am now alt-right, because I reject the likes of Bill Kristol and the Bush clan, who want a sort of crypto-colonialist American Empire and have spent decades hollowing out the middle class. My unease at those things is not remedied by going left, and libertarianism is more of a counterbalance than a solution. Certainly I am not going the racist way of despicable Ann Coulter, nor do I support Trump (which is not to suggest I support nothing that Trump does, only that I think he is a neuroses-addled manbaby with monarchical tendencies who may need to be removed from office).

            Our American Constitutional ideals are the common foundation upon which a truly diverse society can live in peace, with universal guarantees of liberty. I 100% believe that. Europe has utterly failed in this regard, but we can succeed, as we have externalized and codified our ideals, and we have never experienced the “benefit” of centuries of unchallenged homogeny.

          2. However little comfort you may get from “going left,” the views you describe for yourself are definitely left of the prevailing ideology of the GOP, and certainly the Alt-Right. The latter do not just hold views which differ from the traditional right wing positions, but which are often rooted in those traditional views taken to the extreme. In many ways they are simply the logical extension of where the Right has been headed, whether they realized it or not.

            As Obama said recently, Trump et al are a symptom of a problem that has been in the making for a long time, not the problem itself. As someone who has voted from both sides of the aisle since the 80s, I agree with that wholeheartedly. As this process advances, extremes beget more extremes. In the end, I think it is unhealthy across the board, but one can’t avoid the fact that, as of now, this is rooted in the right wing.

            I’ve never found Libertarianism to be a viable ideology for a modern society. It seems little more than a reaction to the idea that both sides are equally bad and so a pox on both your houses, just leave me alone. In the end, it solves nothing so perhaps we agree there. That’s not to say, as with most ideologies, that there aren’t some bits of it that it shares with the others. Few complex positions are entirely wrong (or right).

          3. I would concur with David on this. Many of the values you espouse are explicitly counter to the alt-right, especially since you appear to have a belief in our constitutional republic which they explicitly do not. I do not read in your posts any idea that the only way to advance is to reduce others, which is a common theme on what is considered the alt-right (women’s rights infringe on men’s rights/racial justice punishes white people/economic gains occur when other nations or groups lose/etc).

          4. I just don’t agree. I think the left is just as tribal at home, and just as globalist/interventionist abroad. They are certainly just as bought and paid for by Wall Street and the large banks. For every nutcase on the right, there is one on the left. I don’t say this out of antipathy for the left, or out of some polemic tit for tat. I would have voted for Bernie if he had won the Dem nomination, as I view his brand of “college sophomore socialism” as relatively benign and easily tempered by practical realities. I’m just flat-out unimpressed with Dems (especially where they have actually had an opportunity to govern), and just as alarmed by their brand of extremism:

          5. I would have to disagree. If we are talking about governance, I just don’t see any objective comparison of the Obama terms and what we have seen so far in Trump’s that can conclude that the left is equally extremist or dangerous in that capacity – campus kerfuffles notwithstanding.

            Now being unimpressed with a party and seeing it as the root of the current Alt-Right ideology are two different things. I’m not especially impressed with the Democratic Party at the moment either. I think there is a dire need for them to step up to bat in order to provide a firewall between a toxic president (and his party) and the rest of the country. I’m not sure they are up to it. I desperately hope they are.

            I personally believe that we would be in less danger now if Hillary had won, though I certainly didn’t see her as my ideal president (very few are). But between her and Trump, I couldn’t vote for her fast enough. However, as I said, extremes beget more extremes – it will get worse on both sides.

  4. Good evening everyone,

    When I see things like this I wonder how conservatives can explain that Hilary was wrong when she made the deplorable comment. These are the people who represent you if you don’t fight against them.

    Have an introspective weekend!

Comments are closed.