Goodbye, Doctor Jones

“I’m willing to forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”
~ (Former) White House Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, 2005

A little about myself:  As of now, I am a 28 year old man, and I am neither poor nor rich.  I grew up neither poor nor rich.  I have neither loved nor hated the poor nor the rich.  I am no middle class hero, either, nor would I want to be.  I try to avoid tendencies I observe among poor people, and try to emulate those I observe among the rich.  What I have found may shock you:  rich people get rich by living like they’re poor, and poor people stay poor by living like they’re rich.

Simply put, I don’t rely on envy to dictate my political leanings.  I believe in equality of opportunity and probability of outcome based on effort.  This belief, consequently, puts me at odds with the entire left-wing of the political spectrum.

I’ve never believed in social justice.  I don’t hate the rich, nor do I want to kneecap their efforts; I realize their efforts employ others and benefit society as a whole.  If their efforts do not do those things, barring a monopoly on a sector of the economy, they will begin to lose money.  That is an outcome of natural economic laws; no outside force needs to punish the rich in order to help the poor.

Enter Van Jones.  Dr. Jones recently resigned from his Cabinet post as White House Advisor for “green jobs,” not for his inflammatory remarks in which he called Republicans a–holes, but for signing a “9-11 Truth Petition,” alleging that 9/11 was an inside job, a sick conspiracy theory that doesn’t even pass the simple test of deductive reasoning.  His John Hancock on said document rightly did not meet the White House’s criterion for its Administration officials, and he was promptly shown the door.

What is surprising is that his other public rhetoric had previously met the White House’s standards.  Dr. Jones was an avowed communist, waaay back in 1992, during his time as a civil rights activist.  Due to his influence within the far left wing of the Democratic Party as someone with bold ideas on our energy future, this statement was more than likely overlooked.

In 2004, Van Jones wrote a critically-acclaimed book entitled Green Collar Economy:  How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. He saw our two biggest problems as global warming and the incarceration of the impoverished.  His solution?  Have inmates manufacture clean energy solutions, such as wind turbines or solar panels, in order to keep that money out of the hands of industry, which he defines on purely racial lines.  Capitalism, in Dr. Jones world, is discrimination.  Please, don’t take my word for it; read the statements he made in a 2004 interview, here.

In 2005, he made the statement that headlines this post.  What exactly does “I’m willing to forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends” mean?  A shift had occurred.

Dr. Jones had a specific agenda.  In his White House Cabinet position, he controlled $80 billion dollars of stimulus funds, directed at agencies of his choosing.  I’m not making the number up; check it here.  Don’t misunderstand me; I believe in the investments Van Jones is talking about.  That’s what free-market venture capitalism is all about.  I simply do not believe in disincentives, or Van Jones’ methodologies in getting there.

Since 1992, when Van Jones admitted to being a communist, he has done nothing to prove his socioeconomic sentiments shifted.  He began using the right lingo, even inventing the idea of “eco-capitalism.”  But simply investing public dollars in our energy infrastructure is not capitalism.  Van Jones has a deep-seated disbelief in basic free-market principles, which he made clear by describing his opposition as a “gluttonous, warmongering oil industry” and a “military/petroleum complex running the government.”

Van Jones further believed that “Every significant economic advance in this country, whether it’s the internet, or nuclear power (which a lot of people don’t like, for good reason,) highway infrastructure; the government, the federal government, had to get involved to give it a boost to get it started.”

This is not capitalism.  Additionally, the specific economic advances Dr. Jones cites were all developed by, or for the use of,  the U.S. military.  Their public benefits, while plentiful, were secondary in nature.

Furthermore, Van Jones had a distinct way of mixing up racial issues, social justice, and environmentalism, painting a world of false negatives, where we must make choices between what he calls ‘ego apartheid,’ defined as “more cool solar toys for rich people, more hydrogen stuff in Marin, while Oakland falls further behind, choking on the fumes of the last century’s production models,” and what he calls ‘social uplift environmentalism,’ which is “rainbow from the beginning:” “it talks about job creation, as well as environmental clean-ups and environmental health restoration that can unite business, people of color, and environmentalists, that can be pro-markets but pro-markets that are healing markets not pro-markets that destroy life and destroy capital and destroy the environment, that can say – most importantly – we’re pro-US government.”

Van Jones is gone, for now, though this might not be Dr. Jones’ “Last Crusade.”  Near the end of this chapter of his story, though, Van Jones effectively altered his rhetoric to achieve what he called “radical means.”  You will notice this tendency among leftists:  to employ conservative dialect in their favor.  This is part of a strategy the left utilizes to appeal to the political center while marginalizing their opposition.  Mostly, their words are rubbish.

On Wednesday night, as the President addresses the nation, you will hear the words conservatives long to hear, regardless of the legislative direction the President chooses to take, with reconciliation, the public option, co-ops, or exchanges.  You will hear how a public option would “drive down costs” and “encourage competition in the free market.”  You’ll hear him reassure senior citizens and the center by guaranteeing “security and stability” with increased “availability and access,” while reassuring the left that his plan (which he has left entirely up to Congress) while provide “coverage for all.”

By the way, they re-opened the Golden Gate Bridge in Van Jones’ home state today.  Any takers?  I’m open for bids. 

If he wanted to, President Obama could work a bipartisan health care bill.  There are many different conservative ideas on the table, discussed here.  Republicans have even indicated their willingness to allow a “trigger” for the public option if the private health insurance industry did not cooperate to lower costs in five years.  Obama could develop a pliable regulatory framework to ensure universal coverage within private insurance, drop the distinction between employer-based insurance and individually-purchased insurance, and drop the restrictions for buying insurance across state lines, in an attempt to drive down costs without the use of that taxpayer backstop.

There’s no way the President will do that, though.  Bipartisanship in this matter is not part of his agenda.  Frankly, this is not about health care at all.  This is about control.

“f you want total security, go to prison.  There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on.  The only thing lacking is freedom.”
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower