How Obama Screwed Up the Van Jones Story Arc

Consider this my first (and last) column on the entire Van Jones kerfuffle. Given how the story ended, somebody messed up on this one big time, and the only available suspect is the President himself. There are two possible ways that this was bungled, and we’ll look at them both in a moment. But first, let’s look at the list of “charges” against Jones by Obama administration critics.

He’s a communist
He was part of S.T.O.R.M.
He’s a Mumia Supporter
He’s a 9/11 truther
He said Republicans are “assholes.”
He’s a “radical activist” or “black activist” or some kind of “activist”

To begin with, show me a list of the crimes which Jones has either been convicted of or accused of. Convictions? None that I can find on a quick search. Arrests? Yes, he was arrested during the riots following the Rodney King trial in California, then released, the charges dropped and he received a small court settlement in his favor over the event.

He did say, after that period of unrest that he had “become a communist” over what he’d seen. He signed on with STORM, a self-professed Marxist group which advocates world communism, among other things. He’s also apparently worked with people who believe that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not receive a fair trial and is on death row unfairly.

In no particular order, I felt that the D.A. had a pretty solid case against Mumia, but being one of his “supporters” doesn’t make Jones, by default, in favor of killing cops. People can challenge the legal system and it’s not like we’ve never put innocent people behind bars. Using that as a charge against Jones is pointless.

I wouldn’t personally want an advisor who signed on with STORM or found communism attractive. But for the millionth time, I’m not the President. If I want to pick these people, I should have run for office. But for that matter, we’ve had former Klan members in Congress for quite a while, as I recall, including our longest serving Senator.

So he signed on with the truthers. Ok. And? I find it pretty wacky myself, just as I do the birthers, but does that break any law or make him unqualified for some advisory position in government which basically has no qualifications since the President just made it up out of thin air anyway?

And Jones said Republicans are “assholes.” I suppose I’d better not sign up for any government jobs, since the only difference between Jones and I is that I’ve said that large numbers of Republicans and Democrats are assholes or worse. I guess he’d have been safer going with “the F word” since Cheney got away with it and kept his job.

In short, Obama was appointing the man to an office which has no minimum qualifications and Jones has no criminal background to my knowledge which would automatically disqualify him for anything. I wouldn’t want him advising me on anything, but in the end all we can say is that he has said and done some very controversial things which many folks would disagree with. I hope I don’t put you off your feed when I say that the exact same description could be applied to Barack Obama, John McCain and Bob Barr.

And since when are controversial people eliminated from the Presidential appointment dance card? Hell, George W. Bush did an end run around the intended process when he recess appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. (A position which actually does require vetting and confirmation, by the way.) In my opinion, Bolton is a lunatic and a far more dangerous and “controversial” figure than Van Jones. Yet we had in that position a person who said he wouldn’t mind if the top ten stories were blown off the U.N. building.

This brings us to how Obama screwed this up, and it has to be one of two ways. First, he needed to decide up front whether or not he was going to go the Bush route, pick his own people and say to hell with the critics. If that had been the case, he could have let the media, the bloggers and the talking heads run wild with these stories and simply said, “Too bad. That’s my guy. Deal with it.” There simply is no provision for anyone to be able to force Jones out of that dubiously defined role of “Czar” against Obama’s wishes. But he obviously never intended to go that route. (We can, if you wish, have a debate on whether or not these czar roles are even legal, but that’s an argument for another day. And Obama didn’t exactly invent the role, now did he? *cough* Drug Czar *cough.)

Second, if he was going to let Fox News and the Right wing blogosphere vet his appointments and decide who was worthy to serve, then he should have put some minimal effort into vetting the candidate. That one is a laugh also, since the record has shown us that vetting is something that this administration is simply horrible at.

So take your pick. Either Obama didn’t bother to have the proper research done on his choice and was forced to back peddle or he lacked the conviction to stand by his man. Neither one is an attractive option. But what does this sad tale mean for the future of appointments in the White House? Our friend Ed Morrissey describes it as possibly being an “end to fringe mainstreaming.”

In the future, assuming Van Jones represents exactly how low the bar will be set, anyone who ever does anything impetuous in their youth, who takes a controversial stand on an issue which comes up on the wrong historical end, who generates any sort of controversy, will never qualify for any high level appointment. As Ed points out, will the next GOP president have to scratch off their list every single person who ever gave a positive nod to the birther movement? If you spent one summer in college working as a volunteer for ACORN doing absolutely nothing more than going door to door trying to honestly register voters, are you disqualified from such appointments for life? What if you marched in protest against the Iraq war? Or if you blockaded an abortion clinic on a picket line? Are you too “radical” and “fringe” to ever be considered for any position of responsibility?

I personally find some of Van Jones’ positions and memberships distasteful or at least highly questionable. But the man isn’t a criminal and seems to have some background in green economy jobs. Obama allowed the man to be shot down in flames after effectively setting him up with a big, gasoline soaked target on his back. I guess it’s good that more of us are paying attention to our government and questioning the comings and goings in Washington, but the Van Jones affair is going to have some long term, unintended consequences which will probably make all of us unhappy down the road, no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.