Even men like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and briefly relevant person Anthony Scaramucci, both of whom had their asses righteously handed to them by Bannon at various points throughout 2017, summoned the courage to participate in the pile-on.

Although Bannon abruptly resigned from his old post in August, there was a sense that the storyline of his de facto termination was more kayfabe than reality. Trump politely thanked Bannon for helping propel him to victory in 2016, and predicted that Bannon would be a "tough and smart" voice at a "better than ever" Breitbart News. And while Breitbart staffers prepared for "war" and began whispering about impeachment, the two reportedly continued to talk by phone whenever the new chief of staff, the perpetually-world-weary John Kelly, wasn't around to put a stop to it.

Something here is different, though. Trump famously values "loyalty" from those he allows into his inner circle, and Bannon's purported targeting of members of the Trump family appears to have touched the rawest of nerves. This response—which, again, asserts that that his former campaign chair and senior advisor had "nothing to do" with his election or his presidency—qualifies as absurd and unhinged even by the standards on which we now grade presidential behavior. Breitbart, for now, appears to be taking these developments in stride.

Disavowing one another is kind of a risk for everyone involved. Despite his most self-aggrandizing fantasies, Trump inarguably owes a lot to Bannon, who took over the presumed vanity candidate's dead-in-the-water campaign and won the presidency three months later. Meanwhile, Breitbart has emerged as the new hotness in right-wing media thanks to its willingness to outdo other outlets in stoking various types of animus among those who turned out to vote for Donald Trump. It has functioned as a delicate, symbiotic for both men, but without Breitbart's dependable propagandism, the president's most virulent supporters might be less inclined to stay engaged. And without the president's endorsement, whether tacit or explicit, Bannon's publication could become vulnerable to younger, hungrier competitors willing to sink to a previously-undiscovered lowest common denominator for clicks.

Again, today's exchanges may be less indicative of a substantive rift than they are a reminder of the temperamental, outburst-prone nature of our president. But egos aside, both Trump and Bannon should have every incentive to patch things up going forward. As evidenced by the Republican Party's humiliating defeat in Alabama last month, without each other, they both lose.