Implicitly you are arguing that Bannon simply panders to racists even though his underlying motivation is to protect a certain national culture. Which is worse - an honest racist or someone who panders to racists?
I am fairly certain Mr. Bannon knew exactly what he was doing. And it is inexcusable regardless of his true underlying motivations.
No, implicitly, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm disputing the basis for the claim that Bannon's claim in that particular instance was a racist claim. I don't know whether it was. As I said, it might have been racist, or nationalist, or both. Claiming it's racist as so many left-wing outlets do is an instance of jumping to conclusions, having a belief on insufficient evidence, etc. That in no way is an argument - implicit or not - that Bannon simply panders to racists, etc.; it's a point about epistemically irrational beliefs and accusations - which would remain the case regardless of whether Bannon actually is a racist or a nationalist, or both a racist and a nationalist.
Also, I think Trump is right on this, and Bannon is wrong, regardless of their respective motivations, and that Bannon's position is unacceptable. But that
still does not justify the reaction I'm commenting on, which is again an instance (or rather, many, given that many people did it) of jumping to conclusions, as is the claim that Trump has a White Nationalist agenda - the evidence does not support that, regardless of whether he actually happens to be a racist, or a Nazi, or the reincarnation of Hitler, or Lucifer himself.