Something Is Happening Here But You Don't Know What It Is

From a discussion of the Van Jones incident, here's an odd view. It makes one wonder how common it is:

Some progressives said they saw racial overtones in Jones’ departure [...]

"It struck me, why go after this guy? He is a minor player, he has no power, no budget, why take him? It's because he looks like Obama and he has all those same attributes of being well-educated and he’s an electrifying speaker with an elite education," said John Anner, a good friend of Jones and former chair of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, an organization Jones founded in Oakland. "It seems to me that he is symbolic of what the Obama administration is and could be and that's inspiring for me, but for some people on the right, it's terrifying and threatening.”

Perhaps Mr. Anner, being a friend of Jones, can be forgiven his paranoia, but really, if progressives have internalized this nonsense, it's not good for them or the country.

Let me try to help Mr. Anner.

Why go after this guy?

Well, it's natural for the right to go after the left, and vice versa, especially when they strongly disagree. It happened to George W. Bush's people, it happened to Bill Clinton's people. But beyond that, Jones said and did a lot of outrageous things, much more than the average White House employee. Among them (and the first one's so bad you don't really need any more): he was a 9/11 Truther, or was so reckless he didn't care that he signed his named to a Truther document; he sees environmentalism as a racial issue, and faulted "white polluters" for hurting non-whites, and attacked "white environmentalists" (!) for not framing things in a racial manner; he was impolitic enough to cheerfully call his political opponents "assholes" (and elsewhere did an impression of George W. Bush as a crackhead) in a public forum; in a tortured argument about black and Latino kids, he felt compelled to note (in an ostensible show of sympathy) that we need to help white kids because only they shoot up schools; he was, not that long ago, a self-avowed communist; he considers the state of Israel illegitimate from its founding.  I've got a bunch of other similar items (often regarding what an evil aggressor the United States is and how dangerous capitalism is), many of recent vintage, but I hope I've made my point. It may be true much of his politics are supported by large chunks of the left, but that doesn't make them acceptable in a White House official.

He's a minor player, he has no power, no budget, why take him?

He was the Special Advisor For Green Jobs, which, as far as I understand, is not a symbolic position. Presumably, he'd have had the ear of the President and probably a lot of say over the way many billions of dollar would be spent.

However, if Anner is right, and the guy's just a minor player with no power, then he and other progressives should be high-fiving, since the whole Jones thing was no big deal, and ended up distracting Obama's right-wing opposition from more serious issues.

It's because he looks like Obama and he has all those same attributes of being well-educated and he’s an electrifying speaker with an elite education.

Anyone with his politics and past would have faced significant opposition. Mr. Anner may be obsessed with race, but Jones' opponents are not. Nor are they particularly concerned with his education or his ability to give a speech (if they're even aware of these attributes). It's Jones' radical positions and crackpot beliefs that concern them.

It seems to me that he is symbolic of what the Obama administration is and could be and that's inspiring for me, but for some people on the right, it's terrifying and threatening.

I agree he's inspiring to some, threatening to others. But Anner's statement is far too limited when he says Jones troubles "some people on the right." Try "the vast majority of the American public."

I'm sure Obama will be able to replace him with someone who has similar ideas on green jobs, and then (I hope) we can get down to a serious debate about whether those views are practicable.