Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

After Van Jones, Who Will the Right Try to Target?

By Michael Kieschnick, AlterNet. Posted September 9, 2009.


The Obama White House misunderstood the right wing media machine. Bullies never are appeased by victory. We will all pay the price.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The wonderful Holly Near song of solidarity -- "it could have been me, instead it was you" captures my feeling about the resignation of Van Jones in the middle of the night after a month long smear campaign that was not countered in any way by the White House.

When someone as fine as Van Jones does not inspire a White House defense, one can be sure that others are next. Indeed, rabid television personality Glenn Beck promised as much in attacking "Van Jones and others".

Presidential advisor Axelrod and chief spokesperson Gibbs each issued desultory comments thanking Jones for his decision to resign. It is hard to imagine a more fundamental miscalculation. The country has lost a powerful advocate, but the White House has revealed itself as a weakling, and easily intimidated by a mere television pundit.

It is important for progressives to understand the Van Jones episode, for it speaks volumes about how the right wing media echo machine works.

Jones had been under attack since April by the far right website World Net Daily for putting a green face on a red -- that is socialist or communist -- agenda. This attack got no traction -- or pushback. Glenn Beck used his platform at Fox to bring this fringe wingnut attack into the nation's mainstream news.

Soon thereafter, Beck pronounced that President Obama hates white people, and is a racist. He has not backed down on this claim.

The fine group Color of Change (full disclosure, I am on the email list of Color of Change and my company provides funding to Color of Change, along with many other nonprofit organizations), which was co-founded by Jones, launched a campaign to alert Beck's advertisers to each hateful rhetoric and ask if they wished to associate their brands with the bile. Most, upon reflection, pulled their ads.

Beck accelerated his attacks on Jones, devoting parts of 23 shows to attacking Van Jones, and bits and pieces of Jones's activist past would emerge.

Van Jones spent the last decade as an advocate and organizer. He fought on behalf of those without power, including unarmed African Americans gunned down by police, school children without books, and the urban underclass looking for a way out. He created organizations, spoke at countless rallies, taught classes in prisons, and wrote a best selling book.

Van Jones did not play the game of Washington politics. He did not become advocate with one business card, and lobby for corporations with another. He shared the anger of those he sought to support. He did not trade away the best interests of those behind bars or in need of jobs to be polite. He used strong language in tough times. Like every single person I know, he made mistakes.

I was surprised when Van accepted a position in the Obama administration. The administration was noteworthy for how few progressives it recruited. For all practical purposes, the foreign policy team had endorsed the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Most of the economic team had supported the disastrous prohibition of regulation of credit default swaps in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. Most appointees were respectable by Washington standards in how they had opposed the worst abuses of the Bush administration.

We may never know who told Van he had to go, or who made the repeated choice never to defend him during the weeks of vicious smears. Why would a Van Jones have to apologize for calling Republicans, prior to his appointment, a colorful barnyard epithet when the Obama Chief of Staff considers the F word half of the English language? And why might Van's mistakes be worse than those of say, Timothy Geithner, who took tax free income from the IMF and did not report it? And why is Van Jones more troublesome than say, Joe Lieberman, who constantly slandered candidate Obama, and was rewarded by a clear direction from President Obama that Lieberman was to be welcomed back to the fold?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, progressives, white house, glenn beck, glenn beck, van jones, van jones, van jones resigns

Michael Kieschnick is the president of CREDO Mobile. He has known Van Jones for a decade and has served with him on the advisory board of The Beatitudes Society. CREDO Mobile has supported the Ella Baker Center, Color of Change, and Green for All, each founded or co-founded by Van Jones.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What about the war?
Posted by: ScottP on Sep 9, 2009 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree completely that right wing bullies won't be appeased by the sacrifice of Van Jones. And I agree that the charges leveled at Jones are a smokescreen, and that he has done excellent work for environmental conservation. However, the idea that political veterans don't know all that is a stretch. I would tend to go for simpler explanations, for example: the administration doesn't really care about climate change any more than they care about the slaughter of middle eastern civilians. What did you expect from someone who took over Bush's war in Iraq and carried it on in a seamless manner?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about the war? Posted by: abbygal61
The Grand Illusion
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Sep 10, 2009 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Left is political styrofoam.

Cellularized, all image and no mass.

When the Left was curling up at George W. Bush's feet I remember thinking "I could never be more disgusted than I am right now."

I was mistaken.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those "Right Wing" meanies
Posted by: Fred Flintstone on Sep 10, 2009 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that "right wing" meanies are responsible for Van Jones resigning is PURE B U L L S H I T. Jones was forced to resign by his own people because he had the audacity to sign a petition calling for a REAL Investigation of 9/11. When Obama was cornered on the campaign trail last year HE said he would support an investigation. Now, just like every other promise Obama made (remember "I will end the wars"?) 9/11 is a "no way, no how...blah blah blah...Osama Bin Laden".

I hate to say "I told you so" but I did say "Obama is Bush in black face" 18 months ago. I revise that "Obama is CHENEY in black face".

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Those "Right Wing" meanies Posted by: Lara1967
» Good post...do some further research Posted by: Fred Flintstone
RE: spam report in story on Van Jones
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Sep 10, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I matched the letters at the bottom repeatedly but the program did not recognize them and refused let my typing go through.

This experience matches my perception of typing through some 'window' another typist is controlling, as to go backwards I get a message asking me if I want to sent that form again.

I don't really know what that means but it is consistent with my experience of being spyed upon.

I have a hard time understanding why such a programmer would want to prevent me from reporting spam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who's next...
Posted by: progressive-life on Sep 10, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it depends, how many more racist, anti american czars do we have? Who's the next to go? - Obama for knowingly appointing these type of people - they have no place in our government!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who's next... Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Who's next... Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: Who's next... Posted by: shinseiji
Who's Next? See townhall.com
Posted by: Lilly on Sep 10, 2009 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservative website townhall.com is running a poll so that readers can vote on which presidential advisor they want targeted next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's obvious
Posted by: Comrade Rutherford on Sep 10, 2009 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is made bare, clear and obvious by the White House's firing of Van Jones is that the Democratic Party leadership is controlled by the GOP.

Anyone who has paid a modicum of attention realizes that appeasement of far-right extremists is a victory for them and guarantees more insane attacks from them.

Obama knew EXACTLY what he was doing by firing Van Jones, he was following the orders of his slave-masters, the Republican Party.

There simply is NO OTHER explanation that makes any sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's obvious Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Are you kidding? Posted by: Fred Flintstone
» You got that one right. Posted by: CynicI
AlterNet ignores the obvious reason
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Sep 10, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an odd one to see written by AlterNet itself (not from another source), because AlterNet has steadfastly ridiculed the 9/11 Truther lunatics in the past.

Van Jones wore out his welcome not because he called Republicans "assholes" (haven't we all?) or any of the other stuff cited, but because of his idiotic beliefs about 9/11.

Disingenuous of AlterNet not to even mention this in the article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time for Gangbusters, again
Posted by: willymack on Sep 10, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm old enough to remember a radio show called Gangbusters.
Radio shows were good because one had to USE HIS HEAD to fill in the blank spots because of the lack of visual stimulus. The radio shows were, of necessity, melodramatic for the same reason.
The central theme of these crime shows was that "crime doesn't pay". This was pap for the Great Unwashed, because we knew even then that Big Crime, hand in hand with Big Politics, DOES pay, handsomely, and at the expense of ordinary people.
Remember the Sherman anti-trust statutes? They were implemented to eliminate the very thievery and monopolistic racketeering so common nowadays.
The "press", radio and TV outlets, magazines, and other periodicals, are owned and controlled by a few crooks, and have become next to useless as a source of good, truthful information.
It's time to dust off the anti-trust laws and bring back the Gangbusters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Draft Van Jones for California governor
Posted by: greenferret on Sep 10, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Van Jones is a visionary who understands how we can solve our economic and ecological crises at the same time.

Join the movement to draft Van Jones for governor of California!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rightwing was only able to do all this courtesy of Obama and the Democrats.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Sep 10, 2009 2:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rightwing is not as strong as some would have us believe. For years, George Lakoff and countless others have warned the progressives and liberals against seeing things superficially. Instead of worrying about the symptom which is the rightwing, the progressives and liberals need to target the problem itself and solve it once and for all, that problem being refusal to take care of oneself and each other. Trying to appease the rightwing at the expense of throwing the left under the base has cost the Democrats for decades. The rightwing will always do their targeting but it would be better if the liberals and progressives would actually unite and stick up for each other rather than remain so divided with the Obama worshippers in one camp and true liberals and progressives in the other camp. There is no reason for Democrats in the House and Senate to not be calling on Obama for his firing of Van Jones or pressuring him to resign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paid To Post Trolls
Posted by: madregal on Sep 10, 2009 8:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Noticed how AlterNet and others have been infiltrated by a swarm of anti-everything left of McCain posters? There are paid to post parasites from the right wing stink tanks that have come on board to "soft kill" the agenda of this administration, and turn it's supporters away from it. Subtly is the key here.

And AlterNet is not the only site where this is going on. (Now, I know the parasites will come back at me, but it will only be a few who will attack me openly. The rest will scold me, or play the pity card.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shades of Don Imus . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Sep 11, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who, indeed?! Anyone remember the old analogy concerning whose ox it is that gets gored? No, I suppose not.

Try this: if you don't want to get shit on you, don't throw shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the owning-class values craptasm rolls on
Posted by: DaBear on Sep 14, 2009 8:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to "character" owning class people think "whatever looks nice" or "one of us" [meaning: fellow owning lcassers].

When it comes to "integrity," owning-class people think "how do I look to others?"

This is the craptasm you get when you choose "leaders" from amongst a class of people who are too god damned rich, too god damned fake, too god damned stoopid to actually DO anything even resembling authenticity, integrity, honorability, efficiency, the list rolls on.

Take a look at the seven principles of Budo and then line up every god damned leader since the founding of the Nation [no don't line them up with the "officially stamped history" of those leaders, use yer damned brain and consider the WHOLE history, even the yucky unwashed parts]... I'll show you the shallowest more contemptible rich-idiot classholes the world has ever known.

For bigger fun line up the current cadre of astroturf-roots and the neo-Facsist shills like Beck, et al. against the seven principles of Budo... bwahahahahahahah! Talk about a clutsterfuck....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement