Taking the Movement Out of the Obama White House

UPDATE: I'm scheduled to be on CNN Monday morning, 9/7, at 8:30am ET to discuss this post. Tune in.

My newspaper column this week was about the difference between a political party and a political movement - and I can't say I'm happy to see the lessons of that difference being highlighted so intensely and so negatively as they are with today's news that Van Jones was forced out of the Obama administration (and let's be real clear, despite the "resignation" billing, the White House's pathetic behavior this week makes clear Jones was forced out by the higher ups). This is a serious tragedy for the progressive movement on three levels.

First and foremost, Jones was one of the only movement progressives in a policymaking position in the Obama White House. By that I mean, he was one of the only people in the White House who came out of grassroots movement work and not just political/partisan hack work, and one of the only movement progressives put in a policymaking job, and not ghettoized into a political/tactical job. Whenever I got sick to my stomach at the thought of Obama's Team of Corporate Zombies - people like Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Jim Messina - running the show, I was able to at least tell myself that hey, someone like Van Jones is at least in there somewhere fighting the good fight as he always has. No more - and that's a damn shame.

Second, Jones being forced out will not mollify the racists, crazies, tea baggers, Republican congresspeople and other assorted conservative freakshows - it will only embolden them. When lynch mobs in the Old South lynched someone, when a witchhunting band caught a target in Salem, when HUAC "proved" the supposed communism of its victims, that didn't calm them down - it only intensified their bloodlust because it made them believe they could be even more successful in the future. So if the White House's political "gurus" believe booting Jones was the safe and prudent way to mitigate right-wing hatred, then they are as short-sighted and stupid as they've proven themselves to be in mismanaging the summer's health care debate. Seriously, folks - if you think you can appease or mollify someone who takes to the public airwaves and does this, then you are as crazy as that screaming lunatic is.

Finally, the Jones announcement will inevitably create a chilling effect on the aspirations of other movement progressives. Van is a fantastic person who has done fantastic work. He's kept his advocacy real and didn't compromise his principles. And so when he was appointed to a high-level White House job, it seemed to validate that you could, in fact, keep it real and also advance in American politics and government. That is to say, his story seemed to prove that an outsider could also succeed on the inside - and that outside advocacy doesn't automatically prohibit you from one day working on the inside.

Now, though, because of today's announcement, that lesson has been rewritten. Jones being tossed from the White House says that even in an administration headed by a former community organizer, progressive movement activists (as opposed to far-right conservative movement activists who are celebrated in D.C.) probably cannot hope to ever enter or rise in government.* I'm not saying that's an ironclad rule - but that is the message of this particular event, and you better believe that all the movement activists who know Jones or looked to him as a hero will get that message loud and clear. And that's a tragedy.

The obvious rejoinder to these points is that Jones supposedly brought this on himself by long ago making a mistake and signing a misguided petition about 9/11. Obviously, he made a mistake** - and he admitted that. But even if you don't accept that apology or admission of fault, the idea that him signing that petition means he's worthy of removal is just a pathetic argument that highlights the most damning hypocrisies of all. For instance, are we really expected to believe that Jones signing one random petition is a bigger problem than, say, Geithner accepting free room and board for the industry he is supposed to be regulating? I could make a huge list of such contrasts, including the tellingly different media/political Establishment treatments of "birthers" (cheered on) and "truthers" (totally ostracized) - but you get the point: the entire brouhaha about Jones supposedly awful transgressions is manufactured, considering the genuinely problematic transgressions of so many other White House officials are treated as no problem at all.

Let me just end this post by saying I'm sincerely disappointed about Jones getting kicked out of the White House for all three reasons I've laid out above - and also because I've been personally inspired by the guy. I've seen him speak, read his work and met him at the Democratic convention here in Denver. Out of all the activists and leaders I've met in more than a decade in movement politics, he's really one of the best. And while I hope - and expect - Jones will be back in movement politics soon, losing him as a voice in an Obama administration that is so mobbed up with corporate sycophants and political hacks is a real bummer.

* For the 9/11 truthers out there, let me just say this: Yes, there is ample evidence that the government was grossly negligent in ignoring intelligence warnings about 9/11. And yes, there is evidence that the government has not been all that forthcoming about acknowledging that fact. To say that is not controversial at all - it's verifiably true, and to support better efforts to uncover the evidence around 9/11 isn't controversial either. But no, there is no evidence that proves or strongly suggests the government deliberately orchestrated 9/11. The 9/11 Truth movement has tried to aggressively harass/intimidate almost every person in public life - me, Van Jones, and everyone else - in an attempt to force people to sign onto its statements that the government wasn't just negligent, but orchestrated 9/11. These people are absolutely incessant - and their tactics and statements attempting to equate governmental negligence with governmental orchestration is as offensive as it is awful. It's the worst mix of bullying and conspiracy theorism - and it's not merely "controversial," it's unacceptable and it needs to end.

** By the way, that message is especially true for African American movement activists, because let's just be honest - the fact that the right chose to mount a hysteria campaign specifically around an African American, Jones, was no coincidence. The right didn't just randomly pick some mid-level guy working on noncontroversial issues (green jobs) - they were specifically looking for a black guy with movement politics in his background. Remember, he was targeted WAY BEFORE the 9/11 stuff ever came out - in other words, the right-wing started attacking him before those conservative voices ever even KNEW about the 9/11 controversy.

Hence, we can be assured the original targeting of Jones was a calculated move with race in mind - a move designed to fit the criticism into a larger racial backlash framework first perfected in the 1980s. That framework has created a simple reality: In America, governmental advancement is wide open for right-wing movement players, and you can even vaguely hope for a seat at the political table if you are a white progressive former hippe-turned-yuppie liberal. But if you are a black person with any enduring loyalty to progressive movement or social justice activism, the loud and clear message from politicians and the media is that you are not welcome anywhere near the halls of power, because you will be billed as some nefarious combination of Al Sharpton, Huey Newton, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael and Willie Horton.

Comments

[Brandy40]

We can thank our lucky starts that Van Jones is gone. The man is a professed communist! I can't imagine why President Obama hired him in the first place....doesn't he care who is advising him?
It bothers me that there is no vetting process for these czars, no congressional hearings and no congressional approval. They don't have to answer to anyone but the President. Congress has no control anymore...Obama and his merry czars are in full control. Something is terribly wrong with this picture! Why aren't American's asking questions? How can we stand for this? I think they should all be investigated. They make Bush and Cheney look like angels.

[research]

"angels"?, torture, wars for profit, spying, and more "czars" than Obama,

Bush and Cheney are war criminals, get some perspective.

[Filosofe]

Will you accept me?

[liberalOrgonian]

Over the Bush /Cheney years this country has fallen into the septic tank. We have wallowed in the refuse of our own making. We have lost our direction, used war over peace, and taken this country so low, it may not recover. We as a society, are toxic, suffering from untreatable self importance.. The financial and Insurance overlords have suck the money right out of the system, leaving us on the edge of poverty. We are now at a point where our own survival is in question.
We must, as a country, try to get a grip on our senses. After 8 year living in fear, we need to shed this way of thinking.
We have cancers in our society, one being toxic Glen Beck. His purpose seem to bring out the worst in our society using lies and fables unfit for pigs. He seems to be proving this country will STAY divided. He is an embarrassment to many who see through his refuse.

[liberalOrgonian]

I am saddened by Van Jone's leaving the white house staff. I had seen him on c span a while ago and was extermely impressed. He not just knew green jobs but worked in the trenches of the grass roots movement. I am proud when I see an American making a difference. When I heard Van would be in this Adm, I was ecstatic.
As for Van's comments, which pail to those of some conservatives. I hear some of the damdist comments out of the mouths of ultra conservatives saying the things these days which do not reflect any truth, made up to provoke those who hate president Obama. Beck is a racist and is full of lies and distortions, there is NO creditability from him. His hatred for our President is evident, his goal seem to be to take this administration down. Free speech seems to only work one way, to strengthen the hate Obama population. Beck should have been brushed off like a piece of lint on a silk jacket.
I stand for Van Jones and his character. Van, thank you for all you have done in the past to bring up those less fortunate and create jobs where there were none.
This country is not yet ready for the talent of this man.

[Joseph Palermo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/glenn-beck-vs-van-jones-m_b_279416.html

[steve-annie]

An excellent post ... check it out.

[Floridaborn]

Good Riddance! Don't let the screen door hitcha, Van!

[wildedge]

One more moniker to ignore...

[Pablo]

Wait a minute. I was told Beck went after Jones because Color of Change started the boycott against him. Now you tell me it's because he's black!?

[csmjimmorrison]

An outstanding departure of Jones. We have no room for communist. WE need to get rid of Reid, Pelosi and several others who do nothing but block progress in this country.

[wildedge]

Cheeses, will you people quit taking up space here? Even though that's the only reason you post comments here, it is really annoying when the rest of us are engaged in serious discussion, and it does your own cause no good, since you act like bullies, and most of us simply note another moniker to ignore and move on anyway..

[missionpine]

Superb post by DS, combining righteous sorrow and anger at the firing of Jones with total command of the facts and unshakably sound, ironclad analysis and argument. His third and final reason why this is bad is the most heartbreaking. The message is: if your progressive passion ever leads you to say in public anything that is even slightly beyond the narrow orbit of views countenanced by the "village," any potential career you may have in government is over.

Let me add two additional reasons why this is so bad. The first is really an elaboration of Sirota's last paragraph. It is that Jones was actually a bridge between the white yuppies and African-Americans, and this rapprochement is sorely needed by the left. Jones joked charmingly about going around in Oakland trying to get people interested in the plight of the polar bears. That's the kind of guy who is dangerous to the right, which thrives on division and discord among the left, so he had to be eliminated.

Second, this incident says a lot about the character of Barack Obama. Many of us who have been disappointed in him so far have found consolation in the fact that he is such a decent individual, he will surely eventually see the light. After this cowardly act of betrayal--both personal and political--we have reason to wonder even about that.

[wildedge]

Although the Jones 'resignation' was probably more the work of his staff than himself, he does take responsibility for it. One wonders if his staff is running the show; but as with any major legislation which he signs to which he agrees, ultimate responsibility will get assigned to him. I wonder if that is the real problem with his character as president so far, that he doesn't recognize that we expect him to be in charge, and will hold him accountable for the action - or inaction - of his administration.

[LiamR]

Tomorrow, with great sadness, I will finally pull the Obama sticker off my car. The White House's treatment of Van Jones has changed everything for me. When I hear Barack Obama speak now,he sounds different. When I see Barack Obama's picture now, he looks different.

I grew up in the Hyde Park/Woodlawn neighborhoods on Chicago's Southside. Everybody has their rough neighborhood stories, but I will say one thing about those days: You learned damned quick who had your back and who didn't. The difference was critical and it served as a litmus test on whether or not your friend was trustworthy.

I am so bummed by the White House's cowardice of this weekend that I can't even summon anger over this situation. It's an incident where I want to go to bed and wake up realizing the whole thing was a just a goofy dream. Glenn Beck running the White House, hah!

I didn't even know who Van Jones was until I heard him on the radio today. Go to http://www.thepromisedland.org/ if you're curious about Mr. Jones' temperament. The interview was taped before this miserable weekend. Listen to Van Jones' enthusiasm for the new administration, his humble demeanor, and his dedication. It's only a few minutes, but the effect is chilling: After listening to Jones, ask yourself this question: Would Barak Obama and his White House insiders defend YOU from a right wing assault?

The answer simply turns my stomach.

[wildedge]

I'm afraid Obama can't escape that question. If he doesn't fully embrace the public option tomorrow -and every indication is that he won't - then it will be all uphill for him with progressives. And he and his team do not seem get it that we were the ones who put him in the White House.

[DrInsula]

Very thoughtful post, Liam. Would he defend me? I do not know. But I DO know who he has taken great PAINS to defend: Timmy Geithner. And I know what that tells us.

[PinkMartini]

I couldn't agree more with David's article. When I woke up yesterday morning and heard the news that Van Jones had resigned, I had a sinking feeling.
So if all the right wing Crazies, headed by Glenn Beck et al, scream loud enough, that's enough to get rid of someone?

And then I thought, if they give in on this, what will they give up on other important issues, including health care?
Not a good sign.

[LiamR]

It's that old saying: If you won't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[YoniBeever]

It's the other way around, isn't it?

[BCrago77]

So can anyone here enlighten me:

If Van Jones didn't believe the stuff, why did he attach his name to the Troofer document?

[nofanofheliumman]

Mr. Sirota I have but one question: "Are you serious?"

They are all pawns in The Grand Chess Game. What I cannot believe is that this individual made onto the "board" in the first place.

Or maybe I can. Please study history Mr. Sirota.

[tandrmcdonald]

Van Jones: One of the few Obma people who was, to use a campaign term, not afraid to speak truth to power. What happened? Obama's power elite got rid of him. I guess they just didn't want anyone to shine brighter than their own precious selves. I'm disappointed in the disloyalty President Obama is showing to his supporters in the face of the right wing war to emasculate his administration. He might as well have handed them the scalpel. Only question left... If President Obama is so willing to capitulate to the right wing, andf the gutless weenies in his own administration, how can we believe he will stand up for us when it comes to health care?
What did Van Jones do that was so unforgivable? He signed a petition asking for an investigation of the Bush adminstration failure to avert the September 11 attacks.
Did anyone in the Obama White House somehow miss the testimony of Richard Clark? It was on tv. He made many appearances explaining how BushCo dropped the ball. How Condi Rice blew off his attempts to get someone to listen. How our government was asleep at the switch. Clark was, in his words, like a man running down the halls with his hair on fire, and no one would listen. So, Van Jones signed a petition. He should get a medal, not a pink slip.

[TIRM]

Obama is starting to realize that he can't govern from the wacky left anymore than Bush could govern from the wacky right. The left would be well advised to learn this lesson now and work towards the middle, less they repeat the same mistakes as the right did. Otherwise the left will find itself on the outside looking in, just as the right is now.

[wildedge]

Bush DID govern from the wacky right, that's why the country is a mess. And since the only people who think Obama governs from the wacky left are on the wacky right, we know your real reason for posting here. Give it up, you're so obvious.

[Jay Lewis]

You know, I am beginning to wonder. I located a site once regarding the Bush Administration that contained a small blip about W and his doppleganger Karl, in which W suggested giving a nod to a small concession on some humane issue (very unlike W, but we all have redemptive opportunity moments) and ever-kraftie Karl responding that 'no . . . no, they might not like it.'

'THEY might not like it.!'

"They? THEY! Who in the hell is they?!" --The Wild Bunch

Like many little bits of information about the Bush familia, this was a shooting star time-wise, and the site was gone soon after I tried to locate it just days later. Like many sites regarding his drinking and his sterlingless military career, they do not last long (Clip, clip, clip . . . ).

Karl stood in the immediate shadow slot, behind the curtain, and always close to the President, lest he be he before he could be gotten to.

Nothing unusual for a national leader to have these dark blades in secret service, closer than the Secret Service, to make sure he does nothing that THEY might not like. Nixon was surrounded by such people, but Halderman was king, and everyone from Elizabeth's Walsingham to W's Rove said nothing to their nation but were able to move the mouth of the national leader.

Who is there to ask should Barrack display a milquetoast supplication to his health-care corporate opponents?

I would ask Rahm baby.

[mommadona]

"Duh"

[wildedge]

Your quoting The Wild Bunch reminded me of another great line from that film - "When you side with a man you stick by him or you're finished - we're finished." Throwing people under the bus during an election makes some sense; but once in office, we expect a loyalty from our presidents to their team - the whole team, and not just the ones that are easy to get along with or who don't make waves.