With the Obama Administration letting Green Jobs czar Van Jones resign, questions as to whether these people have any spine are becoming sadly legitimate. What, precisely, would have been wrong with letting Glenn Beck and the others keep screaming their heads off about Jones’ purported radical intentions? Why not do a Glinda and dismiss this nonsense with a breezy “You have no power here”?
After all, we are faced here not with serious charges. There are no modern-day Whittaker Chambers in this crowd. The Republican smears against Obama of late are nonsense, pure and simple.
Example: now that we know what the President has had to say to our kiddies about education, it is clear that last week’s uproar over the supposed horror of Obama “indoctrinating” children with socialism was a cartoon.
The speech, a no-nonsense call to work hard, could easily be a Republican tract. “Pay attention those teachers, listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults, and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.” “If you quit on school you’re quitting on your country.” The circumstances of your life are “no excuse for not trying.” “Whatever you resolve to do I want you to really work at it,” Obama says.
I would be interested to see just what point Obama makes in it Rush Limbaugh would disagree with – in its assumption that an unlevel playing field is eternal and cannot be an excuse for failure, the speech likely offends many radicals as settling for the status quo.
And here’s the point: who really thought the speech would be otherwise? Obama has made “get tough” speeches before, for one thing. Who among Obama’s detractors seriously supposed that he had composed a speech teaching children to rage against the machine and overthrow the suits?
None of them. They were pretending to have such a vision, out of a general animus against Obama. It was, in a word, a tantrum from people out of power and feeling their grip on the Zeitgeist slipping away. Or, among ordinary citizens bristling at the prospect of a speech by the President urging kids to work hard, an unfocused, underinformed brand of partisan hostility.
So why when the same sorts, out of the same gestural, performative brand of animus, start dogpiling on Van Jones is there any reason to take them seriously? To allow sandbox trash talk like this to hound a man out of his job is, indeed, to take it seriously.
Jones was wrong, actually, in disavowing his support for 9/11 conspiracy theory. He signed the document, which can only mean that he supports the idea that 9/11 was planned, or that the Bushies knew something more than they have said, or at least that the charge is plausible enough to require investigation.
But support for that idea is hardly unknown among people of the left – and often gestural in its own way; look one of these types in the eye and ask “Do you really think George Bush and his cabinet engineered the murder of thousands and have kept the secret for eight years?” and watch the nervous pause and the look off into the distance. Speculations in this vein hardly meant that Jones was not sincerely committed to working within the government to do good.
As for Jones calling Republicans idiots, the way things are lately plenty of Republicans are doing that too, and quite a few of them are hardly above making the charge of Democrats. And Jones’ flirtation with Communism was brief and partly rhetorical. There are genuinely committed Communists, but Jones’ life story gives no indication of his being one. I knew quite a few “Communists” in college who are now mowing their lawns and working as management consultants.
All of which is to say that what Glenn Beck was calling Jones out for were things inconsequential, having nothing to with his competent execution of his job. Jones’ job wasn’t even a position of any particular power.
Therefore – even if Glenn Beck and assorted websites had been screaming about this low-level Administration functionary nightly for the next six months, how would it have mattered in any significant way? Sure there is a health care bill that needs to be worked out – but which Congressmen’s votes would have been affected by what right-wing radio hosts were saying about the Czar of Green Jobs?
As to voters, how many would stop supporting Obama because of a paranoid characterization of Van Jones? Pragmatics matter, of course – but at what point does this Administration let principle win out regardless?
Not too far back, I argued that going crazy and having earnest national “discussions” every time some hooligan hangs a noose somewhere only encourages the perpetrators, as making a stir and offending people is just what they want. Silence would be a more potent weapon in such cases than many consider.
In that vein, Glenn Beck should not be able to affect White House staffing decisions. There were people who hated Franklin Roosevelt just as implacably (and even recreationally) as some do Obama now (a book that graphically gets this across is this one). Likely many of them didn’t let their kids listen to Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats. That almost sounds like something from the Onion, and fittingly such people had little effect on what Roosevelt did. They’re dead now; life went on.
The Obama Administration should have acted like the victors they are and made sure Van Jones stayed just where he was. I understand that Obama can’t rule as the outright lefty many of his fans would prefer. But Jones’ presence was a laudable representation of progressivism in the Administration – and a quiet one. Some would even suggest that it was largely symbolic. If the Obama folks are going to throw even people like this off the train just because some silly people make some silly noises, then the bloom really is off the rose.
Sometimes, after all, the best thing is to just let the baby scream.
Print
COMMENTS (12)
I agree with your comments except that Jones had to go if only as a sheer matter of politics.
He should never have been hired in the first place. His bizarre radicalism was quite well known.
It's not a question of spine; and it's only half a question of being afarid of Glenn Beck. It's a question of a guy who said politically impossible, toxic things that formed a distraction and made one question what kind of judgment is being displayed in some of the administation decisions like, for another example, giving the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson.
Somenbody smart just said Obama is at a crossroads where he could turn out to be more like FDR or Jimmy Carter. I'm thinking that right now it loo ... view full comment
I agree with your comments except that Jones had to go if only as a sheer matter of politics.
He should never have been hired in the first place. His bizarre radicalism was quite well known.
It's not a question of spine; and it's only half a question of being afarid of Glenn Beck. It's a question of a guy who said politically impossible, toxic things that formed a distraction and made one question what kind of judgment is being displayed in some of the administation decisions like, for another example, giving the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson.
Somenbody smart just said Obama is at a crossroads where he could turn out to be more like FDR or Jimmy Carter. I'm thinking that right now it looks like the latter.
As for Glenn Beck: a bigger shmuck I couldn't imagine.
p.s. Practical politics couldn't have sustained the continuation of Jones.
A lot of Democratic federal politicians have to answer to mainstream voters, including ones that cling to things, and that answering would have been made increasingly problematic by Jones and how he has been, and would have continued to be, characterized.
The last thing Obama needs is such legislators distancing themselves from him generally and on the very tough policy choices he needs to get through especially as they start looking to their own reelection.
p.s. Practical politics couldn't have sustained the continuation of Jones.
A lot of Democratic federal politicians have to answer to mainstream voters, including ones that cling to things, and that answering would have been made increasingly problematic by Jones and how he has been, and would have continued to be, characterized.
The last thing Obama needs is such legislators distancing themselves from him generally and on the very tough policy choices he needs to get through especially as they start looking to their own reelection.
p.s. Practical politics couldn't have sustained the continuation of Jones.
A lot of Democratic federal politicians have to answer to mainstream voters, including ones that cling to things, and that answering would have been made increasingly problematic by Jones and how he has been, and would have continued to be, characterized.
The last thing Obama needs is such legislators distancing themselves from him generally and on the very tough policy choices he needs to get through especially as they start looking to their own reelection.
p.s. Practical politics couldn't have sustained the continuation of Jones.
A lot of Democratic federal politicians have to answer to mainstream voters, including ones that cling to things, and that answering would have been made increasingly problematic by Jones and how he has been, and would have continued to be, characterized.
The last thing Obama needs is such legislators distancing themselves from him generally and on the very tough policy choices he needs to get through especially as they start looking to their own reelection.
Itzik, you make good points on how the toxicity of Van Jones would detract from the focus the White House needs in order to carry out its agenda. But the distractions -- which are background noise presidents must work through -- will ever be present because the opposition continually creates them in attempts to test the political fortitude of presidents. That's the nature of our politics. Van Jones was so low-level, the president should have used him to make a point -- stand firm and unyielding. Letting Jones resign was a bad political move. This president, I believe, is bent on getting along, which is good. But he's too bent on it, which could be disastrous.
The George Bush or the Clinton ... view full comment
Itzik, you make good points on how the toxicity of Van Jones would detract from the focus the White House needs in order to carry out its agenda. But the distractions -- which are background noise presidents must work through -- will ever be present because the opposition continually creates them in attempts to test the political fortitude of presidents. That's the nature of our politics. Van Jones was so low-level, the president should have used him to make a point -- stand firm and unyielding. Letting Jones resign was a bad political move. This president, I believe, is bent on getting along, which is good. But he's too bent on it, which could be disastrous.
The George Bush or the Clinton White House never gave in to such political harassment because they understood that, in American politics, the perception of being a pushover is worse than the distraction created by refusing to yield. And both presidents -- Clinton and W. Bush -- had quite a few controversial officials.
Being an Obama supporter, my fear is that this cave-in on Van Jones plays into the narrative the rightwing is furiously attempting to create about the president: That he is another weak and spineless Jimmy Carter. It could make him toast, politically speaking of course. I guarantee you, the probing to find other soft spots in this White House from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will only intensify, now that they smell blood.
As for McWhorter's comment on it being wrong for the admin. to recruit Jones and then dump him, I’d quote Richard Posner on Machiavelli: “People… have difficulty grasping the distinctive and essential components of political morality, comprising the qualities necessary in a statesman or other leader. Those qualities are strategic and interpersonal (manipulative, coercive, psychological) in character. They are quintessentially social. They constitute the morality, misunderstood as cynicism, expounded by Machiavelli, the morality that Weber contrasted with an ‘ethic of ultimate ends’, his term for the uncompromising absolutist ethics that one finds, for example, on the Sermon on the ... view full comment
As for McWhorter's comment on it being wrong for the admin. to recruit Jones and then dump him, I’d quote Richard Posner on Machiavelli: “People… have difficulty grasping the distinctive and essential components of political morality, comprising the qualities necessary in a statesman or other leader. Those qualities are strategic and interpersonal (manipulative, coercive, psychological) in character. They are quintessentially social. They constitute the morality, misunderstood as cynicism, expounded by Machiavelli, the morality that Weber contrasted with an ‘ethic of ultimate ends’, his term for the uncompromising absolutist ethics that one finds, for example, on the Sermon on the Mount. The ethics of political responsibility implies a willingness to compromise, to dirty one’s hands, to flatter and lie, to make package deals, to forgo the prideful self satisfaction that comes from self-conscious purity and devotion to principle. It requires a sense of reality, of proportion, rather than self-righteousness or academic smarts. The politician must have an ‘ability to let realities work upon him with inner consciousness and calmness.’”
Scrubs, I respect you arguments even while disagreeing with them.
Just to turn your reasoning back on you, perhaps, the blow back and emboldening flowing from dumping Jones would be just one more distraction to work through.
You have to pick your battles: and as I tried to suggest spine or political machismo is not the issue; nor is it political morality narrowily conceived. You just can’t have a guy on policy board, a Czar of you will, who can be painted as a truther and as a self confessed communist. If you stick to your guns with such a guy then you will be spending too much time stuck to your guns and getting hobbled with respect to bigger things like, perhaps, the idea, some idea. of a ... view full comment
Scrubs, I respect you arguments even while disagreeing with them.
Just to turn your reasoning back on you, perhaps, the blow back and emboldening flowing from dumping Jones would be just one more distraction to work through.
You have to pick your battles: and as I tried to suggest spine or political machismo is not the issue; nor is it political morality narrowily conceived. You just can’t have a guy on policy board, a Czar of you will, who can be painted as a truther and as a self confessed communist. If you stick to your guns with such a guy then you will be spending too much time stuck to your guns and getting hobbled with respect to bigger things like, perhaps, the idea, some idea. of a public option, without which I don’t see you all getting much in the way of health care reform save for some face saving tinkering.
I’d agree with you if the things said about Jones were falsehoods.
Bush 43 was very stubborn admirably and unadmirably so; Clinton not so much as I recall, but maybe I don’t recall well enough.
I am with basman on this, before this no one had ever heard of Van Jones (except readers of the vine). As I said before about others, he said and did things that made himself a lightning rod and he got struck. That happened not too long ago with another Obama nominee (who withdrew) and I can't even remember his name now. Now Obama will get a functionary who will do the job and who most Americans will never even know the name of. By the way, Obama does stick with people he considers important. Republicans have been up in arms lying about Ezekiel Rahm but he ain't going anywhere (unless he wants to go). As basman said, pick your battles. Van Jones wasn't a battle, it wasn't even a skirmish, it ... view full comment
I am with basman on this, before this no one had ever heard of Van Jones (except readers of the vine). As I said before about others, he said and did things that made himself a lightning rod and he got struck. That happened not too long ago with another Obama nominee (who withdrew) and I can't even remember his name now. Now Obama will get a functionary who will do the job and who most Americans will never even know the name of. By the way, Obama does stick with people he considers important. Republicans have been up in arms lying about Ezekiel Rahm but he ain't going anywhere (unless he wants to go). As basman said, pick your battles. Van Jones wasn't a battle, it wasn't even a skirmish, it was more like fisticuffs. In a few months if Republitards bring up Van Jones, most Americans will say "who? isn't he a pianist?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how someone who signed a petition that represented a take on a major public (and traumatic) event that was marked by a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence could ever have been a suitable candidate for a White House position.
If it had been just the remarks about Republicans, or the communism thing, I'd tend to agree with JMcW, but the 9/11 "truthers" are just the "birthers" of the left (and indeed not just of the left).
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how someone who signed a petition that represented a take on a major public (and traumatic) event that was marked by a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence could ever have been a suitable candidate for a White House position.
If it had been just the remarks about Republicans, or the communism thing, I'd tend to agree with JMcW, but the 9/11 "truthers" are just the "birthers" of the left (and indeed not just of the left).
Oddly enough, Mr. McW, after spending the bulk of your column searching for the words to convey just how awful the unserious, inconsequential, fabricated nonsense on the right is, you don't actually address the query in your headline.
Why, in fact, did the Obama team cave in?
This incident tells you a whole lot more about the White House than about Republicans. Perhaps you should take a break from carping about that nasty, duplicitous, unprincipled, dogpiling, trash talking opposition, and look around. I'm not sure you'd be any happier with the potential answers to the questions you're posing than you are with what you think you know about right wing performance art.
Oddly enough, Mr. McW, after spending the bulk of your column searching for the words to convey just how awful the unserious, inconsequential, fabricated nonsense on the right is, you don't actually address the query in your headline.
Why, in fact, did the Obama team cave in?
This incident tells you a whole lot more about the White House than about Republicans. Perhaps you should take a break from carping about that nasty, duplicitous, unprincipled, dogpiling, trash talking opposition, and look around. I'm not sure you'd be any happier with the potential answers to the questions you're posing than you are with what you think you know about right wing performance art.
In fact, I'd like to emphasize that I believe that a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence was indeed a criterion for employment in the last administration, but I'm assuming that the current White House has higher standards.
In fact, I'd like to emphasize that I believe that a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence was indeed a criterion for employment in the last administration, but I'm assuming that the current White House has higher standards.
...In fact, I'd like to emphasize that I believe that a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence was indeed a criterion for employment in the last administration, but I'm assuming that the current White House has higher standards...
Uh no: in fact a real disregard would have sufficed, and they were neutral with respect to regarding probability.
They don't call him Ironyroad for no thing.
...In fact, I'd like to emphasize that I believe that a surreal disregard for facts, probablilty, history, common sense, and even narrative coherence was indeed a criterion for employment in the last administration, but I'm assuming that the current White House has higher standards...
Uh no: in fact a real disregard would have sufficed, and they were neutral with respect to regarding probability.
They don't call him Ironyroad for no thing.
I know Van Jones somewhat personally, and he is a mow the lawn kind of guy. Nice as they come. Not a Communist (calls for Green capitalism) or a Truther. In fact, is there any evidence he actually signed the petition?? I will bet he did not and he did not closely examined what he had allegedly approved. The whole Truther thing looks like just an internet hoax and referring to his or any other name up there from a web site without a real signature on a document is the legal equivalent of referring to bathroom graffiti. Makes Krauthammer/Beck less than a tabloid. If the other names on the petition did not sign either (include some very prominant people incl national security types) should tak ... view full comment
I know Van Jones somewhat personally, and he is a mow the lawn kind of guy. Nice as they come. Not a Communist (calls for Green capitalism) or a Truther. In fact, is there any evidence he actually signed the petition?? I will bet he did not and he did not closely examined what he had allegedly approved. The whole Truther thing looks like just an internet hoax and referring to his or any other name up there from a web site without a real signature on a document is the legal equivalent of referring to bathroom graffiti. Makes Krauthammer/Beck less than a tabloid. If the other names on the petition did not sign either (include some very prominant people incl national security types) should take legal action against FOX