Glenn Beck’s Attack On Van Jones: Fantasies & Falsehoods
UPDATE: Also cross-posted on HuffPo!
After smearing White House special advisor Van Jones for days on his show, Glenn Beck said on August 27, 2009: “I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts — they just attack me personally.”
Well, the White House is wise to stay above the fray but someone has to set the record straight. And as the person who first hired Van Jones, initially as a legal intern and later as a legal fellow, I am in a unique position to know the truth.
And the truth is: Beck is fabricating his facts.
For instance: several times on his show, Beck has said or implied that Van went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots.
NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. And just to be clear: Van was not even in Los Angeles during those tumultuous days.
I know because he was working for me – in San Francisco – when the four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. I was the Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area when Van was an intern.
The verdicts came down on April 29, 1992. I remember Van (who was then a legal intern working with me from Yale Law School) coming into my office in San Francisco. Many of us, including Van, sat there together, listening to the news and weeping. We were all in a state of shock. That night, TV showed the tragic images of LA burning.
The next day, when an initially peaceful march in downtown San Francisco devolved into chaos, Van left the area in tears. He was not involved in any destructive activity. He even penned an essay despairing of the violence and the state of the country.
So how can Beck make such unsubstantiated claims?
THE TRUE STORY (FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE)
This is what really happened. On May 8, 1992, the week AFTER the Rodney King disturbances, I sent a staff attorney and Van out to be legal monitors at a peaceful march in San Francisco. The local police, perhaps understandably nervous, stopped the march and arrested hundreds of people – including all the legal monitors.
The matter was quickly sorted out; Van and my staff attorney were released within a few hours. All charges against them were dropped. Van was part of a successful class action lawsuit later; the City of San Francisco ultimately compensated him financially for his unjust arrest (a rare outcome).
So the unwarranted arrest at a peaceful march – for which the charges were dropped and for which Van was financially compensated – is the sole basis for the smear that he is some kind of dangerous criminal.
Van has spoken often about that difficult period 17 years ago – and its impact on him, as a young law student. But to imply that he was somehow a rioter who went to prison is absurd. Beck also bizarrely claims that Van was arrested in the Seattle WTO protests. That is just a flat-out falsehood.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Arrests and convictions are all a matter of public record. Beck is at best relying on internet rumors or even inventing claims to boost his ratings.
Beck is no more accurate with present facts than he is with past ones.
NOT A MYSTERIOUS “CZAR”
Beck has said repeatedly that Van is some kind of a mysterious “czar,” accountable to no one but the President. A simple internet search shows that this claim is false. A March 10, 2009, press release announced that Van was hired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – to work on her staff as a “special advisor.”
In other words, Van is within the normal White House chain of command, reporting to an office confirmed by the United States Senate, just like most White House staffers. Media outlets sometimes use the “czar” shorthand. But the facts show that Van has no mysterious role or extra-constitutional powers.
Beck has implied on two occasions that Van Jones and other Obama appointees were not vetted by the FBI. False. I was interviewed in my own office by an FBI agent, dutifully vetting Van. Yet another fabrication on the part of Mr. Beck.
Beck also claims that Van has somehow gained control over $500 million in Green Jobs Act funding and can hand out millions of dollars at his whim. Again, that is patently ridiculous.
NO AUTHORITY TO HAND OUT BILLION$
The law is clear that the Department of Labor has authority over the program, with normal rules governing the funds. Anybody who thinks that a lone government official can pass out money, arbitrarily and without oversight, knows nothing about our legal system. A blizzard of lawsuits would stop any such scheme in its tracks, if one were ever put in place.
Perhaps more importantly: final authority at the Department of Labor lies with the Secretary of Labor. Anyone who thinks that a Senate-confirmed, Cabinet-level Secretary would cede control of a $500 million program to some mid-level White House staffer knows nothing about our political system. It is ridiculous.
PROMOTING BUSINESS-BASED SOLUTIONS
But I have to take on the worst one: Beck repeatedly and mistakenly asserts that Van is presently a communist.
Once again, this charge is easily refuted – most obviously by the pro-business, market-based ideas Van has promoted for years, including in his best-selling book, The Green Collar Economy. Van’s book is a veritable song of praise to capitalism, especially the socially responsible and eco-friendly kind.
Yes, for a while, Van and his student-aged friends ran around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons. But that was years ago. Way back then, I counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways.
In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions.
Fortunately for all of us, it looks like he has found some. Over the past several years, Van has emerged as the perhaps the nation’s chief proponent of using business-based solutions to create jobs and clean up the environment. In his book and his speeches, he highlights the key role of entrepreneurship in solving our nation’s problems.
THE ‘GREEN’ JACK KEMP?
Van believes in government clearing the way for private-sector innovation. In a YouTube clip, he said recently that progressives and conservatives should work together to find common ground and create a clean energy economy.
Van said: “We are not promoting welfare. We are promoting work. … We are not expanding entitlements. We are expanding enterprise and investment. … We are not trying to redistribute existing wealth. We are trying to reinvent an existing sector, so that we can create NEW wealth – by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship. This should be common ground.”
He has been preaching that gospel, in various forms, for years and years. Van Jones is the nation’s “Green” Jack Kemp – using business-based solutions to attack poverty.
I found it interesting that Bill O’Reilly in his interview repeatedly asked Glenn Beck whether Van Jones’ youthful views had changed over time. Beck never answers those inquiries and instead keeps insisting that Van has championed these ideas recently. Again, that is simply not true.
QUOTES TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Upon investigation, it turns out that Beck is quoting (out of context) an article that in fact makes the OPPOSITE point.
The 2005 profile that Beck is flogging actually makes it crystal clear – even in the headline – that Jones has “renounced” his earlier views, matured and moved on. Van’s transformation is the entire point of the piece, and it is impossible that Beck does not know this.
Fortunately, O’Reilly seemed to sense the truth. I remember seeing O’Reilly interview Van Jones some time ago and was struck by how much respect O’Reilly showed for Jones. Perhaps O’Reilly’s knowing queries were prompted by that encounter.
When Van worked for me, he did exhibit that “know it all” quality that so many of us – myself included – have when we are young. Over the years, I have enjoyed watching him grow and blossom into a loving father and husband – and a creative, effective leader.
VAN JONES: A TRUE PATRIOT
Mr. Beck’s unfounded attacks are misleading and false. All of us who know Van are so very proud of him and the work he is doing to improve the lives of ALL Americans. He has touched and improved thousands of lives in the course of his career. Now he is in a position to help millions.
He will do well because Van is a true patriot, who loves his country. He has dedicated his life to trying to make it better – especially trying to uplift the poor, the left-out and the left-behind.
In his book, Van draws a distinction between “cheap patriotism” and “deep patriotism.” I highly recommend that chapter to Mr. Beck.
I do hope Van is keeping his head up, walking tall and continuing to fight for green businesses and green jobs. Our country needs more of them – and more people like Van.
Tanene Allison: Follow the Artists to Our New Democracy
EJS has been fortunate to work with Tanene Allison on the past, especially when she worked for the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights. The topic of dissent and the role of artists in helping us more towards a new and improved American democracy is something that resonates with our work. This was originally published Apr. 1 on The Huffington Post.
“Why am I compelled to write?… Because the world I create in the writing compensates for what the real world does not give me. By writing I put order in the world, give it a handle so I can grasp it.” – Gloria Anzaldua
I have been thinking a lot about the role of artists and writers in this new era of our American democracy. As we emerge from an eight year period where any form of dissent was inherently labeled “un-American,” you can feel our country struggle to regain its footing around how best to move forward. Newspapers are shutting down at a rate previously unseen and everything about how we think and get our information is shifting in ways that requires creative thinking and a visionary ability to see things that have never yet be.
O, let America be America again — The land that never has been yet –
And yet must be — the land where every man is free.
- Langston Hughes
Meet Mike Lux, Obama’s Progressive Liason on Transition Team
UPDATE: Special thanks to Mercury Lounge (http://www.mercurysf.com) for hosting our event on a night that they’re usually closed, and to Commonweal Institute (http://www.commonwealinstitute.org) for underwriting this event.
Ellee Koss, Eva Paterson, Netroots Nation, Keith Kamisugi, Rebecca Prozan, Matt Haney and Dexter Ligot-Gordon invite you to join us for a fun and stimulating evening to welcome to the Bay Area Mike Lux of Progressive Strategies and OpenLeft.com on Sunday, February 15, from 6-8 p.m. at Mercury Lounge, 1582 Folsom Street, San Francisco.
In Nov. 2008, Mike was named to the Obama-Biden Transition Team. In that role, he served as an advisor to the Office of Public Liaison and has helped shape the White House Office of Public Liaison.
On January 14, Mike released his first book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be (http://www.theprogressiverevolution.com). Books will be available at the event for purchase and signing.
Event is free, but please RSVP on MyBO, Facebook or through this form. You can also download a PDF flyer of the event here.
ABOUT MIKE LUX
Mike Lux is the co-founder and CEO of Progressive Strategies. Mike has launched a number of important projects, including American Family Voices, and the Progressive Donor Network.
Asian America Must Battle Injustice with President Obama
I originally wrote this for ningin.com, a site covering Asian media and pop culture.
A Black man born in Hawai’i with an Asian sister was sworn into office Tuesday as our President. He took the oath of office on the same bible used by Abraham Lincoln for the exact same oath 148 years ago, realizing the dreams of countless African Americans and others who previously never imagined this moment.
President Barack Obama now leads our country into uncertain and troubled times. But he begins work on our nation’s ills with unprecedented numbers of Asian Americans in substantive roles in this Administration.
Japanese American Peter Rouse is White House Senior Adviser. Chinese American Chris Lu is Cabinet Secretary. Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki is Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Nobel prize winner Steven Chu is Secretary of Energy.
We now have a First Family that includes Asian Americans. The President’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, is half Indonesian. Her husband Konrad is Chinese American. Their daughter Suhaila is hapa.
This roster of Asian names is significant because the halls and backrooms of power in our nation’s capitol have for too long been dominated by monochromatic men. It does not mean we have arrived. It means we’ve only just begun.
Is ‘That One’ American Enough?
The continuing stream of articles dealing with race and the presidential campaign contrasts with the infrequent coverage we saw in the primary season. Just a sampling of articles in the past 24 hours:
TIME’s Peter Beinart in an article titled “Is He American Enough?“: “With their incessant talk about who loves their country and who doesn’t, McCain and Palin are doing something different: they’re using race to make Obama seem anti-American.” [Thanks to David Wilson for bringing this article to our attention!]
From an unattributed blog post, “McCain takes on ‘that one’,” on the Chicago Tribune’s Exploring Race forum: “When I heard the comment, I wondered: Was it racial? (And not in a conscious way. It just sort of had a tinge of “you people.”) … That’s the thing about race: if you’re a person of color and you hear something like that, it can pull you up short and you’re simply left to wonder.”
Politico’s Jonathan Martin thinks that “McCain will be accused of racism regardless“: John McCain is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He could never mention Jeremiah Wright and ensure his campaign aides don’t either, and he’d still be accused of running a racist campaign. … But is McCain doing anything overtly racist? No. … That doesn’t matter, though, to the outrage industry, ever on the lookout for any sign of racism and quick to pounce even when it’s not there. … McCain has not called Obama “a terrorist.”
Philadelphia Daily News columnist Christine M. Flowers in “Obama camp’s racial decoders” says that “race has become the not-so-secret weapon of the Obama camp, allowing it to both promote the candidate as a historic step forward while at the same time attack his opponents with the bigot label. And the polls say that it seems to be working. I’m not saying that Obama will win or lose because of the color of his skin. He probably won’t.”
Commentary by Dr. David C. Wilson, Assistant Professor of Political Science & International Relations at the University of Delaware:
Who’s on First?….”That One”
So-what John McCain is 72, and has grandparent tendencies, Barack Obama is a United States Senator, a presidential nominee, a father, and a human being.
What’s most interesting to me about the “that one” comment is that it’s not necessarily the comment that’s indicative of the underlying racial meaning, it’s the use of it with Senator Obama. Saying “that one” to a white male (or a real child) would be relatively fine in context, but if it’s a woman, a racial minority, or other underrepresented political group member (e.g., disabled person), it’s closer to an “ism.”
But, to be clear, there is a difference (in social scientific thinking) between “racism” and “racialized” behavior; they are not one in the same. Racism rests on an ideology of a group’s biological superiority/inferiority, whereas racialized behavior is an action that calls attention to race, bringing about consequences that can be intentional or unintentional. I’m not denying that racialized behavior is not influenced by racism (that would be naïve), but McCain’s “that one” statement is closer to racialized behavior.
However, by no means should we look at McCain’s “that one” behavior in a vacuum. His “that one” comment, in conjunction with the personal attacks (e.g., “who Obama is” and a lack of reciprocal admiration for Obama’s storied background), and a refusal to look at Obama along with other very cold interpersonal behavior (e.g., no real salutation at the handshake) are all indicators of McCain’s apparent discomfort or antipathy toward Obama. McCain definitely does not respect Obama. We know this because he hasn’t apologized for anything he’s done or said recently.
My point is that John McCain is not racist, but regardless of what most people might think, at the very least John McCain displayed a social dominance orientation targeted at something about Barack Obama. Perhaps it was Obama’s height (i.e., Obama is taller), or his party affiliation…..or maybe it’s just plain okay to say McCain sees more of Obama’s race than he thinks (or knows… shout out to all my psychologist friends).
