Bannon's entire political career, such as it was, had been in political media. It was also in Internet media-that is, media ruled by immediate response. The Breitbart formula was to so appall the liberals that the base was doubly satisfied, generating clicks in a ricochet of disgust and delight. You defined yourself by your enemy's reaction. Conflict was the media bait-hence, now, the political chum. The new politics was not the art of the compromise but the art of conflict.
Steve Bannon's political journey was primarily rooted in political and Internet media, where instant responses were critical. His approach at Breitbart involved provoking strong reactions from liberals, which in turn delighted his conservative base and drove substantial online traffic through their disdain and approval. This tactical outrage not only defined the media landscape but also shaped political identities based on antagonism.
The essence of this new political landscape emphasized conflict over compromise. Rather than attempting to bring opposing sides together, the strategy centered around creating and escalating disputes to engage audiences. Thus, in this framework, political engagement became less about collaboration and more about the spectacle of contention, highlighting the shift in how politics functioned in the digital age.
