« Beginning a List | Doctor Cleveland's Blog | The Preston Brooks Award »

Firing Van Jones Is a Win - For Us


As galling as it is to discover flaws in anyone Glen Beck attacks, I'm not sorry that Van Jones resigned. Signing a petition that calls for "investigating" the truther conspiracy theories is actually a superb reason to not work in the White House. Van Jones shouldn't work in the White House. Neither should anyone who endorses the birther lunacy, even if it's just signing a petition they later deny believing in, should be allowed in any future Republican West Wing.

There's a feeling, I understand, that Glenn Beck shouldn't be allowed to "win." But what has Beck won? Advertising endorsements? No. Beck got someone who founded the group that's promoting his boycott. Maybe he feels some personal satisfaction. But the canning of Van Jones doesn't mean advertisers are signing back on to Beck's show. He's gotten some petty revenge. But he hasn't gained anything for himself.

Has the Jones resignation made Obama look bad, or weak? Only to people, whether on the left or right, who already thought Obama was bad and weak. Only the hardest-core political junkies noticed the Van Jones story at all, because the lunatic right stepped on the story. The opportunity to make Obama's White House looks like a truther loon sanctuary was cast aside in the giddy assault on Obama's dangerous socialist speech about studying hard.

We're actually in luck. The lunatic right overlooked the first nugget of genuine leftist irrationalism they'd happened across for months and months, because they were so eager to run out and prove themselves irrational and irresponsible. I rejoice at their timing.

We have to meet the crazies with sanity, not with more crazy, and it's important not to confuse political passion with political credulity. Being willing to believe any crazy silly thing doesn't make you a more passionate or more committed leftist. It makes you an undisciplined and ineffective leftist. In the long run, and too often in the short run, it makes you a liability.

Being the mirror image of the Rump Republican Party is not a strategy for victory. There is no advantage in adopting the opposition's folly and weakness. "If the enemy," as a character in Shakespeare puts it, "is an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also ... be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb?" Being a truther is an attempt to match the right wing craziness with more craziness, like fighting kamikaze pilots by crashing your own plane.

We need to defeat the crazy right on the ground of cold hard, sanity. Keeping around truthers and other conspriacy theorists only muddies that crucial division between the party that wants to move the country forward in real ways that help real people and the party that is mired in its own fetid paranoias. We need to represent the reality-based community, all day every day. That's the only way to win and the only way to deserve to win.

And the plain unpleasant fact is, the left has no route to victory except virtue. Playing down and dirty in the swamps of paranoia and conspiracy will always be a losing strategy for progressives. Conservative fantasies and fear-mongering will always have a wider and deeper pull in the public imagination than progressive fantasies will; the conservative fantasies are deeply familiar and grounded in long cultural traditions; they come easily. Being progressive is precisely about doing the good that we have to imagine into being, the things we have to work to imagine. Imagining a better world is hard work. It's always easier to fall back into old, comfortable fears. We will never win by talking about the monsters under the voters' beds; the right wing midwived those monsters, long before we were born.

22 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Calling for an investigation into our greatest security screwup at least in 60 years is the same as disputing a birth certificate that's been published?

Remember, the *OFFICIAL* version of 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy - 19 people plus in-country and overseas support crew. The *ONLY* issue is how big the conspiracy was. We went to war with Iraq because we claimed Iraq WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. And they weren't. Oops. So should every person who claimed Iraq was tied up with Al Qaeda have to resign? Is it worse to spend $100 billion and thousands of lives to go fight a mistaken conspiracy member, or to spend nothing asking whether Bush and Cheney might have known something beforehand and dropped the ball? (You know, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"???)

Yeah yeah yeah, you have that "let's all go commit Hara Kiri" patter down, be true to your school, the kewl kidz and the Heathers will respect you more if you just go kill yerself. Peace, piss, outta here.

user-pic

Well, if facts interest you at all, the petition Jones signed demanded into an investigation into

"unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen,"

It was not, in fact, about investigating the screw-ups, which should have happened. It was about a fantasy that 9/11 was an inside job. And that, my friend, is simply batshit insane.

Fulminate all you like, but you're not actually talking about what happened.

user-pic

Boo hoo hoo, mean Van Jones wants to know if some neocon might have been happy to have an attack on US soil, just like they were happy to have Iraq fall apart as an excuse for a permanent presence in the Mideast, even if that means soldiers dying.

The statement is "deliberately allowed", which means say getting a note saying "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" and going back to your golf game, or in other ways letting down the guard a bit. Even if they did this on purpose, they likely didn't think Al Qaeda would make such a successful splash. But really, you think the "While America Slept" crowd wouldn't want a way to wake it up? Is it beyond the pale to suggest that?

user-pic

Here's the petition, sport:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

If you want to read it, you'll see that we're not talking about claims of mere negligence. The petition doesn't claim that Bush neglected the warning about al-Qaeda. It implies that he knew that 9/11 would happen on Septmeber 11, that the government knew which hijackers would do it, that they covered for the planes, that they wired money to Mohammed Atta.

Here are some of the questions the petition demands be investigated:

# Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

# Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

# How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

# What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

# Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

So, again, you're creating a different petition and a different Van Jones.

user-pic

No, I quoted the whole petition in my diary that I referenced. You made a big deal about "deliberately allowed" and I pointed out that funny word "allowed", which is not a synonym for "planned" or "abetted". Is it a pointed, accusatory petition? Sure. Am I still appalled that we had hijacked airplanes flying around lost in our airspace for hours? Yes.

user-pic

Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

No accusation of abetting there. No sirree.

user-pic

Sigh, "covering up" does not equal "abetting". You are confused.

user-pic

If you feel that you can appear sane by denying that Bush and Cheney actually planned the attack but instead claiming that they "deliberately permitted" it, not through negligence but because they wanted the September 11 attacks to happen ... that is not a rational position, either. Seriously.

The charges that the petition wants investigated are that Bush & Cheney may have specifically allowed the attacks, meaning a) they had foreknowledge of such an attack on such a day and b) they deliberately did not move to stop said attack once it was underway. Is that seriously your position?

user-pic

There is still suspicion that FDR let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII. There is still suspicion that LBJ used Gulf of Tonkin to get us into Vietnam.

Name one act that Bush did prior to 9/11/2001 that improved our security and helped prepare us for terrorist attacks that he'd been warned about. Name one. Otherwise, cut the bullshit.

user-pic

There were a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about the Kennedy assassination also. A really thorough investigation helped lay those theories to rest for the sane majority and discredit those who pushed the wilder ones.

An investigation of that caliber would have been useful concerning 9/11.

It is disconcerting that an airplane was able to dive bomb the Pentagon. The passengers of one plane were able to figure out the nature of the problem and sacrificed their own lives hoping to take over the plane but at least to prevent further damage. Our air defense was unable to reach the same conclusion and take action. What gives and has it been fixed?

user-pic

If you think the Warren Commission answered the questions about Kennedy's assassination to rest, you are sadly mistaken. Facts are facts, and Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy. Oh. And the people who know this are not crazy.

user-pic

I'm curious to learn just what it is you include in the "conspiracy theories" that need to be avoided. For example, is it your opinion that we need to avoid any investigation into the alleged conspiracy among Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld and other neo-cons to launch a premeditated (pre 9/11 even) "preemptive" war-of-choice in Iraq? And their conspiracy to control, guide, and corrupt the flow of information within the agencies of government to arrive at foregone conclusions that favored prosecution of their war of choice? Or their conspiracy to boldly and knowingly lie to the Congress and the American people to achieve their objective, for which we have sacrificed 5,000 of our soldiers and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars?

I have no quibble with your statement that there "is no route to victory except virtue." But I perceive holding people accountable for crimes committed against the State to be a prime virtue for anyone who would claim to be a patriot. And I can think of few crimes against the State that are more egregious than leading this country into an ill-considered, terribly planned war of choice by way of lies and conspiracy.

Sometimes, there are "monsters under the bed" that need to be exorcized. And in this case regarding Cheney & Co., there is no virtue in simply turning away and pretending that we can simply move forward without first repairing the severe damage that these monsters have visited upon this democracy.

user-pic

What conspiracy theories should we avoid? A short list:

-faked moon landing
-CIA invented crack
-federal government created AIDS in lab
-JFK murdered by LBJ, Vince Foster murdered by HRC
-Paul McCartney dead since 1967, album covers reveal

Some theories that deserve investigation:

-Cheney's rush to war, with propaganda and lies
-illegal government surveillance of citizens
-politicization of the Justice Department
-failure and malfeasance, rather than deliberate planning, before and after 9/11
-GOP voter suppression tactics

What's the difference between the first list and the second? The second list is full of issues that can actually be investigated, questions raised by real positive evidence. We know enough to know there are real questions.

The first list is strictly non-evidentiary. Every claim is based on secret evidence that exists somewhere, or on urban legend, or on nothing at all.

user-pic

They had already started implementing electronic surveillance before 9/11 with the phone companies' help.

Frankly I think we should just start asking questions, and stop limiting investigations before we start. People who illegally fired attorneys and politicized the judicial department for crass partisan purposes, who sat idly by while billions were siphoned off by corrupt contractors, who pushed us into a torture regime to dismantle the Geneva Conventions, one of our basic bedrock declarations of humanity until then - you think these folks deserve some basic respect of good intentions? They came into power wanting to abrogate numerous treaties and precedents. Scooter Libby was convicted, and with a functional judicial branch another good handful of higher-ups would have been as well. Cheney obviously has contempt for the Constitution and human life in the Middle East. Why is it so farfetched to wonder whether he'd sacrifice some meat on US soil as well? Yeah, you don't put it this bluntly in the White House, but "sat on their hands hoping something would drive us into war in the Mideast" is a minimally acceptable phrasing, as per comments by Richard Clarke.

user-pic

Doctor, heal thyself.

Sometimes there really ARE conspiracies; not just conspiracy theories. Lumping everyone together who doubts the official story about every complicated crime allows egregious events to go unpunished. Labeling those who ask questions "paranoid" certainly does not serve the pursuit of truth; or don't you consider truth to be one of the virtues that we should have on our side?

Birthers? They are lunatics pushing one ridiculous fallacy. The governor of Hawaii has gone on record to dispute their claims unequivocally. It has been proved wrong, and is only a conspiracy in that it is an attempt at group deception.

There is plenty we don't know about 911 that IS KNOWN.

There are a number of elected and appointed higher-ups in the republican party who continue to say, "Well, I haven't seen a birth certificate." I have no doubt that if a 'Glenn Beck' type would say they should resign, they would stay firmly entrenched in office. And they would probably also say it was because god wanted them to.

user-pic

Again, the petition Jones signed did not ask for an investigation into 9/11, but in investigation into whether 9/11 was "deliberately allowed to happen." That's very different.

And indeed, the "inside job" fantasy actually covers up the Bush's real malfeasance. Making the question about whether or not the Pentagon planned 9/11 sets them up for exoneration, and obscures questions about why they responded so poorly and irrationally.

Yes, we have a number of elected officials who dabble in birtherism. They have no business holding elected office, and the sooner we drive them out the better. Sinking to their level will neither help defeat them or help the country.

user-pic

You can't get the difference between "deliberately allowed to happen" and "planned 9/11"?

user-pic

"Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?"

Is that a question about negligence? Or is that a question about willing participation?

user-pic

It's a question about "what happened". I assume part of investigating "what happened" will include a little paragraph on "why and how". Otherwise we get one of these, "we're going to investigate torture incidents at Abu Ghraib, but only as they deviated from the unconstitutional recommendations from John Yoo, and we will limit our investigation to people who had relatively little power or say in the whole mess."

user-pic
Signing a petition that calls for "investigating" the truther conspiracy theories is actually a superb reason to not work in the White House.

No it's not. We have something called "free speech" in this country. Signing one petition does not make Van Jones a "truther"! And getting fired for signing a petition is TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Such purist fanaticism on the administration's part indicates is that it is hidebound to the point of incapacitation.

Next time, please write a blog about Rahm Emanuel's purity. Thanks.

user-pic

The next act in this drama will be the dismissal of a birther from a future republican WH. Mark my words.

user-pic

I'm confused who's a Democrat and who's a Republican anymore. Which Party is in office now again?

Leave a comment

Doctor Cleveland

user-pic

Following: 8
Followers: 9

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address