@revelette1,
Yes, I think that's a very smart piece.
I'll make two quick observations on this. First, Bannon/Breitbart served electoral purposes in the same manner as Trump's pre-election rhetoric re "the establishment". But B/B are minnows compared to the real power players and the really big money in or around the GOP. And those interests are getting pretty much all they want via the Trump presidency so they are going to keep Trump afloat as long as that continues (and ONLY that long).
Second, the GOP and "conservatism" is constantly rebranding itself for marketing purposes. When the Bush administration (with its proclaimed version of conservatism) crumbled down to approval ratings in the 20s, a new branding was needed and the Tea Party campaign got underway (it had been on the Koch brothers shelf
(see here). For some years now, that TP movement's popularity even on the right has been sinking into the toilet. It wouldn't have been anywhere near robust enough, by itself, to deliver a victory to Trump. Breitbart/Bannon had their use but as their profile raised and their share of media power or potential for power increased, they became a threat to existing power structures on the right. And of course, along with this was the fact that Trump's approval was bad and worsening with evident electoral consequences. I don't know exactly how the new branding will be designed but we know at least that it will try to be a brand spanking new thing... "Refreshing New Conservatism! Now without lead, plastics and Bannonism!" Maybe they'll use graphic illustrations, visual representations and costumes that invoke Norman Rockwell - "Real America. Your America. God's America". It will be some **** like that.
Edit: On my second point, we can also be thinking now about how convenient it will be for these same players now functionally in control of the GOP to do a much bigger rebranding when they cast Trump aside, which they will because of how he is destroying the brand and damaging electoral possibilities up the road. To claim, explicitly or implicitly that Bush or Romney or McCain were not "real conservatives" is far more difficult than claiming that Trump isn't a "real conservative". They can, and will, put a LOT of imagined space between "conservatism" and "Trumpism".
