Van Jones is a man who did not censor his political thoughts, did not hesitate to pursue the logical consequences of his beliefs and did not care what others thought of his affiliations. In other words, he is a man who has no business whatsoever serving in government, where such candor knows no quarter, particularly for a man of the left. Mr. Jones resigned on Saturday after it became clear that the White House had no intention of lending its institutional credibility to defend him.
Jones was a mid-level adviser on green energy issues. He was not a critical player; he had no budget authority, nor access to classified information, nor direct access to the president's ear. He wasn't a "czar," although it seems as if the White House was OK with the label as long as admiring environmentalists were applying it. And the stuff of the controversy, regardless of its provenance, was genuinely controversial: even when he was just a former communist with a habit of calling Republicans evil, the White House was OK with him. Then it was revealed that he had (mistakenly?) signed his name to a Truther petition.
And that was that. It may not be fair to Jones, but this is not about
Jones -- it's about Obama, and whether defending a guy who used to be a
communist, who called George W. Bush a lot of really bad things, and
who found himself in close company with people who believe that 9/11
was a government conspiracy was worth whatever Jones was currently
contributing to American policy as a member of the White House. And it
wasn't.
Jones's sudden departure has occasioned the creation of some pretty deep narratives and a few superficial ones.
The
Politico decided that Jones's departure represents a major political
development of some sort. "Beck Up, Left Let Down, And Jones Defiant."
Some liberal commentators also believe that Obama caved and that the
refusal to fight on Jones's behalf signals weakness in both principle
and narrative.
As a general matter, the White
House has a history of NOT caving, even when the freak show, to borrow
Mark Halperin's term, packs 'em in. Zeke Emanuel may have had some pull
with his boss's chief of staff, but the White House hasn't asked Mark
Lloyd, an FEC adviser, to step down because Glenn Beck and the Media
Research Center have him in their sights. Sonia Sotomayor's remarks
about Latina judges and wisdom? The White House defended her stoutly.
The
administration hasn't withdrawn the nomination of Cass Sunstein for an
important and powerful OMB post, nor did they ask Rosa Brooks to leave
the administration when she was subject to loud criticism, nor have
they stopped fighting for Dawn Johnsen's nomination to be the key legal
adviser in the Justice Department. Or Harold Koh, who is now the State
Department's chief legal adviser. Or John Holdren, the chief science
adviser, who thirty years ago wrote dispassionately about abortion as a
method of population control. Actually, when it comes to defending
administration officials in key positions who make daily contributions
to policy, the Obama White House defends its own pretty well.
Jones was a comparatively easy target, the political equivalent of low-hanging fruit. He was barely a "czar" -- his power was nominal, and he was brought into the administration because many Obama advisers on the environment and economic policy admired the way he found a neat way to end the "environmentalism is a job killer" contention. He was a classic policy entrepreneur, and, arguably, the type of person that liberals and progressives want as a presidential adviser. But he was -- and can be -- more influential outside of government than inside of it.
Jones was a comparatively easy target, the political equivalent of low-hanging fruit. He was barely a "czar" -- his power was nominal, and he was brought into the administration because many Obama advisers on the environment and economic policy admired the way he found a neat way to end the "environmentalism is a job killer" contention. He was a classic policy entrepreneur, and, arguably, the type of person that liberals and progressives want as a presidential adviser. But he was -- and can be -- more influential outside of government than inside of it.
For the same reasons, triumphalism over
Jones's exit is misplaced. Jones was many things, but he wasn't
the fascist that reactionaries insisted on calling him. And he was
never terribly powerful. In fact, his departure makes it easier for the
administration to press ahead with its Green Jobs initiative -- no
longer do opponents have Van Jones to kick around anymore. That Jones
was even the target of vitriol is more evidence of paranoia; the Bush
administration used "czar" in a tongue-in-cheek fashion; the Obama
press shop was casual in its early descriptions of administration
advisers who were given certain portfolios; suddenly, "czar" became
czar -- as if these folks had actual power and malevolent influence --
and not only that, as if they worked in concert to take over the
government and impose their evil world ways.
Is Jones the victim of a racist conspiracy? There is no evidence that racism motivated opposition to Van Jones.
Will
Jones's departure give ammunition to climate change skeptics? Maybe.
The reason why Jones was the target of any attention whatsoever was his
ideological entrepreneurialism; David Wiegel of the Washington Independent contends that his "downfall
represented a crucial and possibly educational victory for the wing of
the conservative and libertarian movement that has tried, without much
success, to paint environmental activists like Jones as anti-capitalist
radicals less interested in the health of the planet than in a
well-disguised radical agenda." Jones had given the Green Jobs meme
more than a patina of respect even among Republicans, and because of
these sins, he was dangerous to conservative and libertarian
anti-environmentalists. Obama has been careful not to alienate
environmentalist activists to date, and Jones is a hero to many of
them.
That
said, had Jones not given his critics such ammunition, he may have
drawn fire, but he probably would not have been shot.
I think you're right, Marc, that the truther stuff did him in. It's just so hard to allow someone like Beck to appear victorious.
Other than Meg Whitman though, what other Republicans offered their public approval of what Jones was doing and what he represented?
Marc, you're slipping. Very sloppy writing. "a man who did censor" - don't you mean "did not"?. "had Jones had not"? Cripes, that's some terrible prose.
I noticed that too.
Marc-
A thoughtful post but you have no basis for your assertion that he will be more effective outside of government then within government.
You also don't connect to the larger concern held by not just people on the Left. This concern is that highly qualified people are excluded from working in government not because of their ineffectiveness but because political opponents delve into rather irrelevant aspects of their personal lives.
There has been no accusation that Van Jones is not loyal to the United States and no basis for believing that he cannot sit in a room full of Republicans and have an adult discussion (at least no problems on Jones' end).
Jones is a Yale educated attorney and is widely respected in this area of "green jobs." This is a loss for the Administration and a loss for the huge majority of Americans that put the Administration in power who presumably support an aggressive "green jobs" creation policy.
What did anyone gain from his resignation? What progress did economically friendly environmental policy make? Nothing. This was a resignation about nothing. And it is yet another manifestation that DC is a political town, not a policy town.
I'm not saying that Jones absolutely couldn't sit in a room full of Republicans and have an adult conversation, but there is certainly *basis* for believing it.
He referred to them as @ssholes, in front of a televised event. Once he saw that it got laughs, he repeated it a few times.
I'd say that this is the basis for thinking that he could not have an adult conversation with Republicans. No guarantee that it's true, but that's certainly a stupid enough thing for him to do that you have to wonder...
There have been plenty cases throughout history where people with extreme views have done a good job. Hugo Black, who I believe was first appointment to the supreme court was a member of the KKK. Did his views toward segregation effect every decision that went on in the court and did it disqualify him from being a supreme court justice?
I would say nowadays yes he would have obviously been canned. That being said I don't feel that while on the supreme court those views towards race denied him the ability to progressively on other issues. FDR himself said that he would never take a picture with a black man, but his policies he implemented also did more to help all people including black people then most American presidents.
Van Jones most of his career has slanted his views anti-establishment. Now while FDR and Hugo Blacks views may have been established and ok then, my point is you can see from history that those views did not slant for the negative the work they did. Van Jones is racist, but would that racism have anything to do with the work he is involved in?
Probably not. Just like Karl Rove being an atheist may have pissed off a few neo-conservative Bush fans, but it didn't effect the quality of work he did for that administration(or lack there of). Van Jones being racist former communist might make a few people uncomfortable, but I don't see why that would effect his work. If anything a few people with differing opinions probably might do our politics some good.
1. If you actually read the petition (link), you'll see that it says people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war. Note that it doesn't say Bush or Cheney knew, and note also the magic word "may". Now, certainly, some of those signing on may actually believe that Bush or Cheney knew, but OTOH one would have to be extraordinarily naive and completely ignorant of history to think it would be impossible for anyone to know about it and do nothing. Their petition includes a series of what certainly seem to be valid questions. Why is there such establishment pressure to avoid answering questions such as, Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day? I can imagine no conceivable reason why the Beltway establishment would want to avoid answering that question!
2. It's certainly interesting that Beck and r/w bloggers were able to take on Jones, yet those same people didn't exactly fight tooth and nail against Sotomayor despite the fact that she's going to have a much, much, much greater impact on their lives and not just because she was a member of the National Council of La Raza, a considered-mainstream group that now has an ally at the upper reaches of our government. See the link for my extensive coverage of that group, and write those who helped push Jones out the door and ask them why they capitulated over Sotomayor.
I agree that your column was a thoughtful production. However, other than your view that Jones had no business serving in government, there is very little I agree with.
Some things are just not as complicated as people like to make them. Try this: Jones is smart, but he's an ass. The plain fact is that the majority of people don't like a smart ass. This is the major reason why Jones was forced to resign, which, I think, is more than "about nothing."
Will he be missed? Hardly. Try this: "The graveyards are full of irreplaceable people." So...I think we'll manage to get by without the likes of him.
"...[T]he huge majority of Americans that put the Administration in power who presumably support an aggressive 'green jobs' creation policy..." is in fact exactly that: a presumption, and a grossly unwarranted one at that.
Until the Left understands (and is ready to admit) the real reasons why Obama was elected, they will be doomed to mystification as to why their expectations of the political values of the country as a whole are constantly confounded.
This isn't the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, nor was Obama elected to support "an aggressive 'green jobs' creation policy". It's easy to get tone deaf in the echo chamber.
Nor did Jones founder because of "rather irrelevant aspects of his personal life". His explicit linkage of his environmental goals to his ambitions to "go beyond systems of exploitations and oppression altogether" as stated in his interview on Uprising Radio in April 2008 represent a huge hazard to the Cap and Trade bill, one that Jones touted to Pelosi as a "jobs" bill, a claim she repeated on the House floor the day it was slam dunked.
He needed to be hustled off-stage, and quickly...at midnight Saturday on a holiday weekend was the opportune moment before Congress reconvenes.
Geez, a voice of reason here. Thank you.
Now if Ambinder would get a brain and shut up...
Actually, when it comes to defending administration officials in key positions who make daily contributions to policy, the Obama White House defends its own pretty well.
So why is Johnsen still waiting for confirmation? And did you ever stop to think why that is? It's because none of them are "of the left" as you put it. Do you really think the lefty blogostan is going to care if Beck really targets Sunstein? Not in the least. In fact, I dare say some might secretly cheer Beck on in that particular case. If you read Greenwald at all, you'd know why.
Maggie-
I must disagree. If you don't think that green jobs is a big national priority right now, you aren't following politics at all. Even McDonnell in the VA Gov race is making it a signature issue. The country has come around to the idea that investing in environmentally friendly technology should be a high priority. Kind of a shame its about ten years after George W. Bush mocked Al Gore for pushing this idea, but at least it's finally catching on. The point is that green jobs is big right now. And Jones is considered a key expert in the area. So it is a loss that he isn't working on these kinds of policies from within government (where the power actually exists).
Obama was elected to implement policy. He was not elected to keep the Oval Office warm for four years. He has the House and a slim supermajority in the Senate. Whatever you think about the reasons why he was elected- he better get stuff done.
Lastly, the idea that the energy bill is a "jobs bill" or that environmental policy is linked to greater causes of social justice should not seem radical. In fact it is common sense. Environmental progress has often been part of social justice movements.
As far as I can assess the real issue here is that the effects of global climate change are inarguable and that Van Jones is one of the most brilliant, visionary, articulate and effective people working to create a solution that will impact all future generations. To dismiss him because of comments he made and a petition he signed is ridiculous. What we need to examine is his on the job effectiveness given the scope of the problem we face. What matters is his effectiveness in his campaign to create green jobs; not simply for the benefit of those employed but for the benefit of the entire global economy and the species itself. Jones was brilliant at his job. If we let those like Van Jones go without a blip of protest from the White House, I fear we are doomed not only to a kind of mediocrity in our leadership but also and more importantly to all manner of unimaginable-although paradoxically predictable-- effects of global climate change.
"What matters is his effectiveness in his campaign to create green jobs; not simply for the benefit of those employed but for the benefit of the entire global economy and the species itself. Jones was brilliant at his job."
And how many green jobs has this man ever created?
Just offhand, how many green jobs has Jones created?
Sorry for the double question--the system was balky.
Negro please. If you do not think this has to deal with race I have a cracked bay bridge to sell you.
Hey Marc, I think this is a pretty good post.
Meh. There were a lot of petitions floating around four to five years ago that a lot of people signed. All these post-mortems declaring it was the "truther" aspect, and not the "commie" aspect are just avoiding the racism aspect of it. It was the Marxist-Black Nationalist that scared the white Democrat establishment, but they, and you Marc, grab on to the petition in the hopes you won't have to address the racism. It's obviously a relief to you to cling to that thin reed. And certainly Beck loved getting back at ColorofChange. So for you to declare that "it's all about the petition" is a pretty superficial, and silly, analysis. But that's no surprise.
Of course it sucks that a person as brilliant as Jones is no longer working within the gov't and the shiny that gets the rightwing nutbirds freaked out is just plain silly, but this was all about Beck getting revenge on Jones because of Color of Change.
If the boycott had not worked, Beck would have ignored Van Jones and instead found more uber!socialistic messages in the art work on buildings built by socialist commie pigs like Rockefeller or Carnegie.
I mean just look at Carnegie, he built all those libraries and everyone knows only Marxists (or is it Fascists, I get confused) like libraries....oh, look shiny...
pretty good read on the flap from a DC perspective. you missed a couple of things, though. first of all, it's not hard to draw a comparison to Jones and Wright. To suggest neither Beck and Team Obama were aware of the race card in this round of political poker isn't credible. Obama's position on race boils down to, yes, i'm black, but it shouldnt matter--what does matter is the Constitution. Jones, on the other hand, ruthlessly played the race card for years, shaming liberals as he moved further up the ranks. just on that tip alone he was a liability for a president who wants to desensitize race and has already taken knocks from wright and most recently, Skip Gates. the last thing Obama needed was a Wright revival, not from a Christian, but from a Marxist. so by cutting Jones' rope, he lightened his liability load before it became heavy baggage.
Along with that goes the fact Beck played the race card consciously and subliminally. He probably doesnt believe Obama is racist himself, but he wants to upset people who are easily perturbed by that notion. He didnt go after Jones because he was black and radical, he went after Jones because Jones represented a threat to energy special- interests who want to resist sustainable environmental policies as long as they can. So race played a factor on both sides, and Jones was easy pickings for race baiters. That's not a game Obama wants to play.
i like your analysis that Obama's green jobs program will be better off--by saying that you're pretty much dispelling the lefty position that Jones was more than just a mouthpiece for a not-quite-there-yet movement. Jones' bully pulpit tactics worked well when he was shaming greenies with white guilt, but that duck wont fly among hardnosed conservative CEOs who dont wear their consciences on their sleeves and probably dont have to capitulate just because they drive a Prius and drink fair trade coffee, because the CEOs of major American industrial firms arent driving Priuses. and they're probably drinking Starbucks.
Jones would have had to sit down at the table and be accommodating, which isnt really his style. He likes to be heard. He does not like to listen. His elitist arrogance is already legendary in Bay Area activist circles, and he has a rep for taking credit for ideas he didnt originate. It would have become painfully clear he had no real green job expertise and his only real qualification was his celebrity status. the guy was a lawyer-turned-civil rights activist-turned eco-visionary.
Claudius has a really good point, one which is being glossed over by Jones day late, dollar short defenders --including John McWhorter, who'da thunk it? But he didnt leave as broad a legacy of creating green jobs as some would have you believe, unless you count green internships and some policy recommendations. To a large degree he was all talk, all rhetoric, with less substance than that job requires. it takes more than charisma and ambition to be successful in Washington politics. You need diplomacy too. In the end, Jones simply wasnt a good fit in a gub'ment job because he was too accustomed to being a team leader and not enough of a team player.