Van Jones May Be Better Off on the Outside

Imagine for a moment that it's 1977 and that Martin Luther King was still alive and had just been nominated by newly-elected President Jimmy Carter to serve as secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

No doubt King would've brought enormous skills and experience to this endeavor, especially when his civil rights critique expanded to uplifting those burdened by the suffocating conditions of abject poverty.

But a Congress not far removed from Watergate, along with the last soldiers leaving Vietnam, might have had a difficult time confirming King, given his long-standing and outspoken views on the war.

I strongly believe King's stance on the war represented one of his greatest moments. But the intense scrutiny of a confirmation hearing could allow his detractors to take his comments out of context.

More than the statements, the challenge for King would be crossing the divide from social activism to inside-the-Beltway player.

Historically speaking, this is seldom achieved successfully in American politics, with the possible exception of someone who is elected by the voters. Even then, one must recalibrate activist sensibilities if that person is to successfully represent a constituency in Congress.

This brings me to the central problem that plagued Van Jones. Jones, who went from well-known Bay Area activist to national figure with a book on the New York Times best seller list, was the green jobs czar in the Obama administration who was forced to resign last week.

In his attempt to morph from outside agitator to political insider, Jones became the tangible example of the liberal straw man for conservative television commentator Glenn Beck.

Beck's criticisms were based on Jones, five years ago, signing a petition calling for an investigation into whether the Bush administration knowingly allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to take place as a pretext to war and that Jones used some unkind, unprintable words toward some Republicans -- words that Jones also used to describe himself and some Democrats.

The transition from outside activist to inside political player is not as easy as it may appear. As an activist, the First Amendment protects Jones, but inside-the-Beltway politics is played by very different rules that do not factor context or nuance. Nor does it necessarily care about free speech.

There is seldom a long-term consequence for a person's role as an activist because you are insulated by those who think as you do. But it is different inside politics. There is no statute of limitations for remarks that violate the groupthink motif, no matter how many years ago something was said.

If a criticism is to be leveled toward Jones, it would be that his ambitions to be an inside player should have caused him to be more strategic in the manner that he supported certain causes. But a close examination of what Jones actually said (a practice seldom employed by one's enemies) proved it wasn't nearly as inflammatory as it was made out to be in sound bites, and Beck's obviously biased analysis.

But the comments were just inflammatory enough to make Jones the low-hanging fruit ripe for Beck's picking. Beck gets something to crow about, and his devotees receive a morsel of red meat at virtually no expense to the Obama administration.

If one examined an organizational chart of the current administration, where does Jones fit? His position, though important to the environmental cause, would be hard to locate.

Ironically, this reality may have as much to do with Jones' demise as anything he said or the hyperbolic actions of Beck.

Of course the Obama administration was going to throw Jones under the bus. With health care, the economy and two wars, a green jobs czar is just not high on the priority list.

Some question the vetting process of the Obama administration. By all indications, based on what Jones actually said, he simply wasn't high enough on the administration pecking order to warrant expending inside political capital to defend him. This was exemplified by the terse comments by the administration immediately following Jones' resignation.

Government, by nature, is not a radical beast and it is not intended to be so. It generally behaves in radical ways only when it has no other choice; and it certainly is not interested in housing those who are viewed as radical, be it justified or not.

Although a casualty, Jones comes out of this incident better known nationally than when he entered. He will be well-positioned to return to his activist roots.

It may be that Beck, in his insatiable quest for relevance, has served the cause of the environmental movement more than he could have imagined by placing Van Jones back where he belongs -- on the outside.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at [e-mail] or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[frankwatson]

Radical extremists like Van Jones will always have the President's ear. Even when they are shunted away from public view their radical ideology still prevails in this White House. Just because Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and other embarassing radicals were moved to a less prominent office their views still prevail and are well represented by this administration! I see & hear Reverend Wright & Bill Ayers radical views well represented and providing the sweet hidden undertones of every thing the President says. I heard Van Jones loud and clearly in the President's Carbon tax legislation where he awarded those Carbon credits to his friends and supporters to be sold and bartered for by those who don't support the President's radical agenda.
It's funny that all these people that the President finds so interesting, and whose ideas are so appealing to him are shunted away once the public becomes aware of them. This shows me that the President's views are not in line with the majority of America and more shocking with an ever growing number of his Democratic party member supporters. NOT ALL DEMOCRATS ARE RADICALS.

[billhodges]

Sorry it was her father in-law, my apologies:

Jarrett's family background and her initial introduction to Obama may tie her to Jones' radical ideology.

Jarrett's father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was an associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the controversial labor movement activist who has been identified as an early influence on Obama.

Vernon Jarrett and Davis worked together in 1940 in a Communist Party-dominated organization, the Citizen's Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. The group's own correspondence, previously uncovered by the New Zeal blog, describes its communist influence. Many of its leaders were tied to the Communist Party.

The pair also frequented the South Side Community Art Center, which was dominated by communists. In addition, Davis and Vernon Jarrett worked in the late 1940s on the communist influenced, black-run Chicago Defender newspaper.

[billhodges]

I find myself agreeing with your article regarding why the administration cut him loose. And he will actually be able to do more back on the street, but that is OK because we have a free country, at least for now, that allows that. But what he says will be even more under the spot light and could still harm his cause if he is not careful.

His tactic to go from sign carrier to inside the government worker just did not fit his style. As for Obama and vetting, I suspect, but do not know as a fact, that the Obama's knew exactly what they were getting with him. Another upcoming issue is Valerie Jarrett's father who I was told, but have not looked up yet was a self avowed Communist in Chicago. If this is true then that makes more and more people that are associated with anti American activities. How can this be.

[frankwatson]

The President knows exactly what he's appointing when he appoints these radicals to position of high office in his administration. They represent his views which are far outside the mainstream but are being falsely represented to the American public as moderate. The President is anything but a moderate Democrat. He comes from the radical left side of the party. He represented and trained ACORN PEOPLE. He has no problems with the views of Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Van Jones and a plethora of other radicals who surround him. He only has a problem with their views when they are exposed at which point he merely moves them to a less visible office. But they are all well represented by this administration whether present or not. AND THEY SERVE AS EXCELLENT & HONEST REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS RADICAL ADMINSTRATION'S TRUE POLITICAL VIEWS.

As the great American poet Allen Ginsburg said: "A naked lunch is natural to us, We eat reality sandwiches. But allegories are so much lettuce. Don't hide the madness."

This President's truly radical views are hidden within the allegories of his speech, but the Reality Sandwiches are the real radicals that surround him and when expressing their views they reveal the disguised truth behind this radical anti capitalist administration.

[quivera-man]

I also do not agree Van Jones vetting was a matter of a mid-level oversight: unless "czar" is understood to mean a mid-level bureaucrat (since when, historically) or the combination of Green and Jobs are considered mid-level priorities on the national scale. No denying the health-care platform is the over-riding concern and he will be more effective in the private sector but his resignation is disappointing for the signal the adminstration sends regarding their pre-campaign rhetoric. That green jobs are not fully delivering in large numbers - and can not be expected to be for some time - is an overlooked fact but that is beyond Van Jones ability, although I believe he took the fall so this will not become another, unflattering issue. Too bad.