Having Your Own Radical Negro Is So Last Year...

And then there's Keith/ Waiting for trial/ Twenty-five thousand bail/ If he goes down you won't hear his sound/ But his friends carry on anyway/ Fuck 'em!

The Clash, Jail Guitar Doors

I don't agree at all with Jane Hamsher's politics, but I'll give her credit for one thing - She's figured out Barack Obama and the Democratic Party a hell of a lot faster than I figured out George W. Bush and the Republicans:

And so the [Democratic/liberal/progressive] groups in the DC veal pen stay silent. Their leadership gets gets bought off by cocktail parties at the White House while the interests of their members get sold out.  How many have openly pushed back against the Administration on Don't Ask, Don't Tell or DOMA? Well, not many.  Most tried to satisfy their LGBT members by outsourcing activism to other organizations, or proving their bona fides by getting involved in the Prop 8 battle that is not directly toxic to the White House.  It's a chickenshit sidestep that betrays their members in the interest of personal gain, which they justify with feeble self-serving palliatives about the importance of "maintaining a seat at the table."

Where are they on health care?  Why aren't they running ads against the AMA, the hospitals, the insurance industry barons who have $700 million in stock options, PhRMA, the device manufacturers and the White House for doing back room deals with all of the above?  

Why are they not calling for the White House to release the details of those secret deals?

Because they are participating in those deals, instead of trying to destroy them.  Well, that and funneling millions of dollars in pass-throughs to their consultant friends that they are supposed to be spending on the health care fight.

The truth is -- they've all been sucked into insulating the White House from liberal critique, and protecting the administration's ability to carry out a neoliberal agenda that does not serve the interests of their members.  They spend their time calculating how to do the absolute minimum to retain their progressive street cred and still walk the line of never criticizing the White House.

Hamsher's real problem at the moment is that none of the liberals who were singing Van Jones' praises a month ago are willing to stick up for him now. It is a legitimate gripe:

If these groups, if these liberal leaders, let Jones just hang there while Glenn Beck pounds his chest and celebrates the scalp, we have no liberal institutions.  What we have are a bunch of neoliberal enablers who have found a nice comfortable place in the DC establishment that they don't want to jeopardize, and place on the new K-Street gravy train that they don't want to lose.  Dropping Van Jones from their rolodex is a small price to pay.

Jane sees this in terms of a good, old-fashioned sell-out. I don't, although I admire her honesty in calling it as she sees it. The bottom line, I think, is this: A couple of months ago Van Jones was cool. Now he's not.

Let's face it, every liberal worth his or her salt wants a radical negro friend. You know, the hint of danger and all that... The suggestion that one is risking something and taking a stand. It's the sort of thing that scores points at cocktail parties.

What Jane's forgotten is this: It's important to remember that suburban Marxists are just that... suburbanMarxists. They are never to be relied upon because they are fundamentally unserious. These are people who spend their lives pretending to have a cause. Wanting Van Jones around was never about Van Jones, it was about them.

Van Jones was the political equivalent of a Toyota Prius: You don't buy a Prius because you're serious about saving the planet, you buy a Prius because of what you think it will say about you. A Prius gives you permission to feel you're superior to others without actually having done anything.

So it was with Van Jones. He was in. He was cool. And people wanted to be around him. Not because he'd done good things in prison reform or environmentalism. And certainly not because of their affinity for his politics. No they wanted to be around him because, like that Prius, Van Jones was a liberal fashion statement...

Look at Me! I know a radical negro! Aren't I cool?

Now Van Jones isn't cool. He carries baggage that could be embarrassing - or even vaguely threatening - to your average suburban Marxist. So he's gone... Soon to be replaced with someone - or something - else. Fashion is, after all, fashion. It was never meant to be permanent.

Is it any wonder Van Jones went down without a sound?

Comments

[JeffS]

That's fairly surprising about Jane getting it so quickly. She feels betrayed, and I don't blame her.

But I hadn't looked at the Obama Administration as being a fashion show, with Van Jones as one of the models (if you'll pardon my stretching the analogy). Which is what you're leading to, I think.

An interesting thought indeed......

[Mona]

Jeff writes:That's fairly surprising about Jane getting it so quickly.

Jane, among others, has been "getting it" for some time now. This is not new. Perhaps only the first time you have heard of it. She and others are working on a project to politically kill either Dem or GOP lunatics/wimps, and have been since before the general election.

[Simon]

Mona - I think your comment is a reason why backhanded compliments are not often made in the blogosphere. Jane is a turd. The fact that she thinks Obama is a sellout for throwing a stupid, racist, truther under the bus is not a commendation.

I wish her luck with her 'project'.

[just passin by]

She'd have to start with the tards at her own site

"corporate fascism"

"Democrats; they keep on holding themselves to higher etiquette and ethical standards than do the Republicans"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[TmjUtah]

Give it a few months. Jones might well reappear as a pundit on the circuit.

All it takes is a few news cycles and an introduction worded along the lines "... was a cabinet official in the administration until unsubstantiated allegations of past political activity forced his resignation..."

The target audience for TV won't even blink. Why should they? A fraternity that hires a Stephanopolous as a journalist has no shame.

They don't have to be clear, just look good, or something like that.

[Jim Ryan]

Tmj, Peter, Dennis. Even ol' me. It's like the frickin' Totten comments section of '04 in here. Where's Samuel?

[JeffS]

Jane, among others, has been "getting it" for some time now.

Jane gets "it", but for her own reasons, and not necessarily ones that I agree with; Simon makes a good point.

And the old saw "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply here. We simply share a common problem. Obama is getting criticism from all sides, and is discovering why being a "centrist" is easier said than done.

[TmjUtah]

Egad, Jim. I haven't heard from Samuel in years.

Reminds me - I need to buy some airplane food for Mr. Totten if next week's check arrives.

And I'll always buy the sausage and gravy if I ever return to Westerville, Mr. Peasant.

Briefly and broadly back on topic:

Hamsher is offended that The Won isn't fulfilling her fantasies of Leftist Utopic policies. That's a convenient way for her to avoid, in her position as a widely followed web nutrooter, from being the one to point out that Mr. Obama is positioning himself to destroy the establishment... just not in the way the nutroots thought he would.

Or maybe I give her too much credit.

I still think that Mr. Obama's crack to the auto and finance kulaks about "pitch forks" has a better than even chance of coming back to haunt him and his supporters of record...

[Mona]

I wish her luck with her 'project'.

It isn't just hers; I'm a member as well. Those running it are both liberals and libertarians who otherwise find much to disagree about. But we want, as out name says, "Accountability Now."

[richard mcenroe]

I'm old enough to remember when Leonard Bernstein used to invite the Black Panthers to his posh sworries in Manhattan and basically hand them out as party favors to the rich white guests because they were so earthy and exciting.

"Those running it are both liberals and libertarians who otherwise find much to disagree about." -- Oh, Lordy, the libertarians are falling for this shit AGAIN? Is there anything they won't do for a promise of legalized pot?

[Mona]

Oh, Lordy, the libertarians are falling for this shit AGAIN? Is there anything they won't do for a promise of legalized pot?

Richard, I am so very sick of that accusation. The libertarians on board with AN (myself included) are civil libertarians who believe in habeas corpus, the right to counsel, the 4th Am, and that the Rule of Law applies even to the Executive.

The libertarians tapped for AN are those who generated the Ron Paul "money bombs." I've interviewed them. They care a great deal about a plethora of issues, and certainly not merely about weed, fer god's sake.

[Jim Ryan]

civil libertarians who believe in habeas corpus, the right to counsel, the 4th Am, and that the Rule of Law applies even to the Executive

In other words, almost all Americans. How about limited government, enumerated powers and 10th Amendment? That's where the list gets short.

[PeterUK]

Richard,
In this playbook,don't the "liberals" imprison and kill the libertarians?

[Mona]

More about Accountability Now. Rick Williams is only barely mentioned in this article, but he is one very savvy (libertarian) lawyer and strategist.

And Jim Ryan, I assure you Williams, I, and Greenwald are concerned about "limited government, enumerated powers and 10th Amendment."

[richard mcenroe]

PeterUK -- Shh! She's on a roll.

[richard mcenroe]

But Mona, sorry, after watching the way the Paulies tried to hijack the LA County Republican Party this summer, I beg to be forgiven if the only common ground I see between liberals and libertarians is a shared dislike for honest dealing.

[Mona]

I beg to be forgiven if the only common ground I see between liberals and libertarians is a shared dislike for honest dealing.

Got it, Richard. Everyone who is not of your political stripe is opposed to "honest dealing." (And I didn't vote for Ron Paul, btw.)

In any event, I trust that some reading about Accountability Now (and teh google will find much more), does generate someunderstanding that those libertarians among us are not interested in merely drug policy reform -- tho we certainly are about that, too. As my non-libertarian, Reagan Democrat Crim Law professor taught us in law school, there are three issues that will cause an appellate court to rule any warrantless search (or other violation of the 4th Am) reasonable, and those are:

1. Drugs;
2. Drugs; and
3. Drugs.

He was right then, and it is even more true now.

[PeterUK]

"PeterUK -- Shh! She's on a roll". What's she rolling?

[Mona]

What's [Mona] rolling?

Sushi.

But apparently for some here I must be doing dope. Cuz I disagree with you some. Very adult, that.

[PeterUK]

Mona,You are the one who brought up drugs,the Thread is about Van Jones,former Green Czar in the Obama administration.
You are the one who is hijacking the thread.
And watch the sushi,look what it does to Sumo wrestlers.

[Mona]

Mona,You are the one who brought up drugs,

Oh really? Please see Richard Mcenroe at 12:41, who accused we libertarians in the Accountability Now org of just wanting to smoke pot. And the the comment later asking "what [Mona] is rolling?"

You, sir, are wrong. I did not initiate the discussion of drugs.

[PeterUK]

No Mona,OK,but,Richard,said this,"Oh, Lordy, the libertarians are falling for this shit AGAIN? Is there anything they won't do for a promise of legalized pot?".

Not the same as"Please see Richard Mcenroe at 12:41, who accused we libertarians in the Accountability Now org of just wanting to smoke pot."

That is being flexible with the actualite!

He could quite easily have meant,and quite possibly did, they were just be being "libertarian" about it.

You Madam are, however the one who decided to make it an issue.

BTW,You are terribly dirigiste for a libertarian.

[Mona]

You Madam are, however the one who decided to make it an issue.

I see. I respond to an attack on those of my ideological persuasion that has been leveled at me and my like-minded brethren for decades by both left and right, and yet *I* and the one "who decided to make it an issue." (Your goal-post moving is cute -- at least you are no longer claiming I introduced the topic.)

[PeterUK]

Mona," I respond to an attack on those of my ideological persuasion that has been leveled at me and my like-minded brethren for decades by both left and right, and yet *I* and the one "who decided to make it an issue."

Yep,
"In any event, I trust that some reading about Accountability Now (and teh google will find much more), does generate someunderstanding that those libertarians among us are not interested in merely drug policy reform -- tho we certainly are about that, too. As my non-libertarian, Reagan Democrat Crim Law professor taught us in law school, there are three issues that will cause an appellate court to rule any warrantless search (or other violation of the 4th Am) reasonable, and those are:

1. Drugs;
2. Drugs; and
3. Drugs.

He was right then, and it is even more true now."

That is making an issue of it.

[just passin by]

No person that seriously considered themself to be a libertarian would have anything to do with the liberals, who are all statists.

Politics may make strange bedfellows, but only a retard would ignore the leftist/communist/socialist history of creating front organizations and then sandbagging their "useful idiot" "allies".

And anyone who believes the pinkos THIS time is going to have to show me some specific examples of the Democratic initiatives on individual rights:
Are there any sanctuary cities for weed?
Any municipalities where I can opt out of mandatory insurance?

No, anytime they start yapping about "civil liberties", it's always a ruse to defend a murderer or a terrorist.

[Mona]

That is making an issue of it.

Or, also known as, defending myself against a common, sophomoric attack on libertarians about drugs such as made in this thread. There is a reason we talk/write so much about drugs, and not the one introduced by Mr. Mcenroe.

[Mona]

No, anytime they [liberals] start yapping about "civil liberties", it's always a ruse to defend a murderer or a terrorist.

Uh-huh. Which is why they were preponderantly right about Jim Crow before the right caught on. As for defending murderers or terrorist suspects, that well-known Communist, H. L. Mencken, put it this way:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

[PeterUK]

"Or, also known as, defending myself against a common, sophomoric attack on libertarians about drugs such as made in this thread."

Otherwise known as "being too precious for words".

Sadly Mona,you will find the world doesn't take you a seriously as you do yourself.

[PeterUK]

just passin by.
The Socialists will eat the libertarians for breakfast. Unless the terrorists don't get them first.

[just passin by]

"Uh-huh. Which is why they were preponderantly right about Jim Crow before the right caught on"

Christ...another Mark/Elliot...

Was it the Republicans or the Democrats that supported Jim Crow in the South? also which Republican named Byrd was a Grand Keagle (or whatever the Klan idiots called their leaders)?

And thanks for ignoring the point about the pinkos taking libertarians for a ride.