THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
John McWhorter has a pretty strange defense of Van Jones on his blog. He makes two main points. First:
Jones was wrong, actually, in disavowing his support for 9/11 conspiracy theory. He signed the document, which can only mean that he supports the idea that 9/11 was planned, or that the Bushies knew something more than they have said, or at least that the charge is plausible enough to require investigation.
But support for that idea is hardly unknown among people of the left – and often gestural in its own way; look one of these types in the eye and ask “Do you really think George Bush and his cabinet engineered the murder of thousands and have kept the secret for eight years?” and watch the nervous pause and the look off into the distance. Speculations in this vein hardly meant that Jones was not sincerely committed to working within the government to do good.
No, this idea isn't unusual on the left. But it is unusual within the Democratic Party. There are paranoid cranks on both the far right and the far left. The difference is that the former tend to work within the two party system, and the latter don't -- they tend to view both parties as equally corrupt. Even the relatively mainstream venues of the left, like the Nation, have a foot or a foot and a half in the "Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum" analysis of American politics. Just because the GOP has largely embraced or tolerated the Birthers, it's no reason for Democrats to embrace or tolerate the Truthers, or even people who think Trutherism is reasonable.
Second, McWhorter argues:
Not too far back, I argued that going crazy and having earnest national “discussions” every time some hooligan hangs a noose somewhere only encourages the perpetrators, as making a stir and offending people is just what they want. Silence would be a more potent weapon in such cases than many consider.
In that vein, Glenn Beck should not be able to affect White House staffing decisions.
No, Glenn beck per se should not have any power. But if Obama were to appoint Charles Manson, Beck would go (more) nuts. Is that a good reason to keep Manson?
4 comments
Is it possible that Jones thought that the petition was basically saying that the administration failed to adequately respond to intelligence that a 9/11-style attack might occur, not out of intention or some conspiracy theory but out of enormous incompetent boobery, which *has* been a theme of Democratic politics? That's all I can think of -- that he didn't read the petition carefully or that the petition could be interpreted in the benign way. This confusion is plausible. It's why polls trying to show that the left is as nutty as the right that use 9/11 as the left's litmus test are suspect. The questions typically can be interpreted as asking whether the administration was *negligent* in the face of *general* knowledge -- which is true -- as opposed to *purposeful* in the face of *specific* knowledge -- which isn't. I could see supporting investigating the first; not the second. If he really bought into Truther conspiracy theories, then, yeah, I don't see any defense.
- jhildner1
September 8, 2009 at 6:58pm
Hell, even I think it is totally absurd to believe that 9/11 was an inside job; set in motion by folks from, say, Project for the New American Century. PNAC? They're the neo-cons who wrote American foreign policy needs, “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. That this was 1] written in the year 2000 and 2] endorsed by many of the folks who were in or around the Bush Administration is just a conincidence I'm sure. Ah, but only a fool would rule out as absurd the belief that many reactionaries in or around the Bush administration would try to derail any efforts on the part of any branch of the government to derail such an attack. Thus when that infamous PDB all but screamed, "Al Queda! Planes!! Soon!!! We Must Stop Them!!!!", it wouldn't really shock me much at all if some of the folks in, say, Dick Cheney's office assured the President it was just another fly to swat at. Moving on: Chait: There are paranoid cranks on both the far right and the far left. The difference is that the former tend to work within the two party system, and the latter don't -- they tend to view both parties as equally corrupt. george: Oh, please, Jonathon. Are you actually convinced that, with respect to core economic and foreign policy issues, the Democrats and the Republicans are NOT tweedle dee and tweedle dum?! You actually fucking believe that!! Like, you know, for real? But for sure: There are often ENORMOUS DIFFERENCES between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives on many important social issues---from abortion to xenophobia. But something like, say, hanging a noose around systemic health care reform and stringing it up til it draws its last breath is certainly a bipartisan effort. After all, immense sums of money are involved. So if someone thinks morons like Glenn Beck are a greater danger to the sort of universal health care citizens of all the other democratic republics take for granted than the Republicrats in Congress and the White House, they are just one more inflection point to be parsed and parted with, in my view. Just not on September 14th. george walton
- iambiguous
September 8, 2009 at 7:25pm
Here's this post in RSS: "John McWhorter has a pretty strange defense of Van Jones on his blog. He makes two main points. First: Jones was wrong, actually, in disavowing his support for 9/11 conspiracy theory. He signed the document, which can only mean that he supports the idea that 9/11 was planned, or that the Bushies knew something more than they have said, or at least that the charge is plausible enough to require investigation." PLEASE PLEASE fix the RSS feed!
- sconover
September 8, 2009 at 9:46pm
"No, this idea isn't unusual on the left." Really? Evidence, please? I realise that 'the left' is one of TNR's favourite bugaboos, but just because right-wingers like McWhorter claim that us lefties believe Bush was behind September 11 doesn't make it true.
- SMacEachern2
September 9, 2009 at 10:07am