Apparently for a number of weeks, Fox News commentator, Glenn Beck, has been ranting about Obama Administration hire (working in the White House)
Van Jones. Mr. Jones, a well known West Coast activist, was "recruited" to work on "green jobs," which is something he has worked on, along with prison reform and environmental justice campaigns.
Glenn Beck, known as an extremely conservative commentator (in the style of Rush Limbaugh) picked up on several issues about Jones: the fact Jones called Republicans assholes, that he talked about white polluters and white environmentalists harming black communities, that Jones belonged to a group in the mid-1990s that advocated Marxist solutions to economic injustices, and maybe because Jones had been arrested in San Francisco in post-Rodney King riots and for the rioting and property destruction in Seattle during the World Trade Organization meetings in 1999 (Beck linked Jones with the anarchists who took "credit" for the Seattle riots).
Jones was hired by the White House, who, this weekend, distanced themselves from him by saying the hire did not go through the normal "vetting" process. It seems to me that an Administration that says it wants change should have taken more care to vet their hires. But more importantly, change also means not doing the usual Washington, DC shuffle. In other words, not ditching people when something about their pasts become controversial. Like so many other Administrations, particularly the Clinton one, loyalty to staff seems rather thin with the Obama Administration. This was a good moment, a teaching moment, for Obama, to talk about how people evolve in their thinking, how we tend to moderate our wild ideas as we grow older, but from those pasts, many good things can grow.
Prior to this weekend, Jones was a hero of many in the progressive movement, and seemingly could do no wrong among the newly minted environmental/social justice opinion makers. He was loved by everyone from Arianna Huffington to Rachel Maddow. He was feted by corporate American, seeming to fit their idea of having Van Jones around will fulfill environmental justice concerns. Check.
Now of course, since his resignation, attributed by the anti-Beck crowd as being hounded out of the White House, Jones stock is soaring. He is a martyr to the cause of being against Fox News and conservative political commentators.
And many in the Washington, DC establishment are wondering whether the "new" political atmosphere is being held accountable for comments made (and refuted) in your past. I think about Senator Ted Kennedy's eloquence when he talked about how none of us are defined by one incident, one or two moments in time. We are vastly more complicated than that. Jones should not be judged, least of all by a hyperbolic, bombastic commentator, for things he said or petitions he signed. He was hired by the Obama Administration because many many people in the business sector, including Meg Whitman, the former CEO (and Republican candidate for California governor) thinks Jones is a catalyst for change when it comes to jobs, the environment, and social justice.
On one list serv that I am a member, which caters to journalism, the emails have been flying over Glenn Beck's irresponsibility and how he was unjust to Jones.
Here is how I look at it. There is no doubt that Van Jones is a charismatic and charming leader of a many pronged movement to link social justice, environmental issues, and economic class. There have been many who have toiled in these trenches for decades before Van Jones swept onto the scene, and many who will continue the work long after Van Jones moves onto other issues. His leadership skills, however, are far far better off in the advocacy arena than the political milieu where caution and extraordinary care with words and actions are the norm. In the advocacy arena, hyperbole and pushing caution to the side are keys to success. In the White House, his particular skills, are stifled.
Also, if Jones is as a sophisticated leader as has been advertised, surely he can understand the delicacy of the Obama Administration. President Obama must, at all times, appear to be the president of all Americans (including Glenn Beck). While there is no doubt that issues of environmental justice (as in pollution affecting poorer communities) impact people of color far more than others, increasingly issues of desperate impacts are based on economic class rather than color of skin. Jones should not be held accountable for his prior advocacy comments, but on the other hand surely Jones knew his prior comments and beliefs would haunt the Obama Administration if and when someone cared to spend the time looking at them. A simple Google or Bing search will reveal Jones and his prior comments (as well as a view of Breaking the Chain a video done by Eugene anarchists about the Seattle WTO protests/riots will show an energetic Jones) and hopefully he knew someday, someone would check him out.
It's sad to see the bifurcation of advocacy and politics. In other words, that making the transition from advocacy work to politics is harder and harder. This difficulty in the transition also makes politics less interesting, more driven toward the cautious and easy resolution, rather than tackling large picture issues with zeal and energy. But, the silver lining to this is that perhaps people who are in advocacy will not be inclined to join the government, but rather be far more effective standing on the outside lobbing bombshells, pushing the slow moving political process to take heed or we'll take it to the streets.
Here in the Northwest, as well as California, whether candidates showed up to vote has become an issue. One candidate for Seattle mayor and another one for county executive missed some elections. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay didn't register to vote until 2002, and now she is running for governor of California (like many women, perhaps she didn't want to admit she was eighteen until 2002).
Posts
