Van Jones, CNN, Fascism, and the Republicans

When he lived in the Bay Area, I bumped into Van Jones, the CNN commentator, several times. On each occasion, he left a positive impression. To my mind, the most significant instance was during a book release party for Alternet.org. During the panel discussion, he said, “We need to be more con-fessional and less pro-fessional” -- that is, activists need to more frequently acknowledge mistakes, and pause professing our opinions. 

That is an extremely important point. Deep, strong feelings, including righteous anger and a sense of urgency, motivate activists. Too frequently, those feelings lead to self-righteous preaching rooted in arrogance, which can prompt us to try to forcefully persuade others to agree with us. That arrogance is wrong and counter-productive. Truth and justice call for humility and honest self-examination.

I’m glad to report that in one recent instance Van practiced what he preached. He made a mistake on CNN and when I pointed it out to him, he accepted my criticism. 

On two occasions, he said that in order to overtake Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders must win 60% of the remaining delegates. But according to my calculations, he only needs 54%, which is much more achievable. So, via Facebook and Twitter, I sent Van messages arguing that he was wrong. Given the high volume on his feeds, I was unsure he would ever see my messages, much less respond. But I feared that using the 60% number would discourage potential Bernie supporters, so I persisted. 

My first message, about which I assume Facebook sent Van a notification, read:

Van Jones did a great job on CNN last night, especially concerning the erosion of Hillary's African-American "firewall" and her potential vulnerability to Trump among white working class voters. But I believe he made a mistake when he said Bernie will need to win 60% of the remaining delegates. If the super-delegates switch away from Hillary as they did in 2008, that is not the case.

My second message read:

I don't understand why Van Jones continues to say that Bernie will need to win 60% of the outstanding pledged delegates to win. If he wins 53.6% of those delegates, he will have more than Hillary, with great momentum behind him. That could prompt superdelegates to switch, leading to a majority of those delegates to back Bernie. If they did not, they would have hell to pay.

I also posted:

Thanks, Van Jones, for squeezing in that final comment about Hillary saying Bernie had supported the Minutemen, and for earlier pointing out the cynicism of her saying he opposed the auto bailout -- and repeating it last night even after being so roundly criticized for it! Not only does such dishonesty hurt her relationship with Bernie, as you pointed out, it hurts her relationship with voters and potential voters.

Then, The New York Times reinforced that assumption about the superdelegates. So yesterday I posted a link to that article and the following comment:

Van Jones, the last sentence of this article reads, "Superdelegates generally support the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates." Please stop saying Bernie needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates. Adjust that interactive graphic, and it shows Bernie winning if he gets 54%, as I've said before. You're doing a great job on CNN, but you're wrong about that.

To that post, Van replied, “Ok. He has to get 55%, not 60% ... That's actually a significant distinction in the world of politics.” I responded, “Good to hear. Thanks.”

Moments after his first reply, Van also commented, “Thanks! Any other feedback, always welcome.”

That comment led me to post the following:

I appreciate the invite. 

In “Bernie’s Revolution” I wrote, “On a recent CNN post-election analysis, Van Jones suggested that Hillary is being effective by adopting ‘intersectionality,’ a term coined by Kimberle Crenshaw….” Was my memory correct on that point? If so, can you document an instance when Hillary has adopted an intersectional stance? 

It seems to me that merely presenting a list of “barriers” is not intersectional. Rather, one would need to discuss how those barriers interact in a systemic way. And though Hillary has at times talked about nurturing “love and kindness” throughout society, that theme also does not seem to be necessarily intersectional. And as I expressed in “The March 6 Disappointment,” it seems she articulates that theme only occasionally, and unfortunately has not done so during the debates. If she were sincerely committed to that perspective, it seems she would have talked about it during the debates.

Consequently, though your comments prompted me to re-evaluate her candidacy, I’m now less impressed with her “electability,” especially after her dishonest and cynical charges that Bernie opposed the auto bailout and supported the Minutemen, two claims you rightly strongly criticized. I fear the “honest” Trump would be stronger against the “dishonest” Clinton than he would be against Sanders, whose integrity is highly regarded.

I’m also concerned that Trump will appeal to white working-class voters with his attacks on the “free trade” agreements that Hillary supported. And he will more effectively tap the anger that is widespread. So, not even considering the looming email issue, it’s far from clear that Hillary is more electable.

And if Trump gets the nomination, he must be stopped. In recent decades, I’ve argued that the United States, with its deep libertarian bent, is unlikely to go fascist. But if we have one or two more major terrorist attacks on our soil, all bets are off. Trump or the next Trump could inflame the authoritarian, racist tendencies deeply embedded in at least one-third of the American people and use that passion to somehow seize power, as did Hitler who took over without a majority of votes.

Watching the violence at the Trump rally site in Chicago last night and the reporting on his encouragement of violence reinforced my fear, which prompted me to post on Facebook:  

Watching CNN coverage of violence at Trump rallies. Appreciate the good work they're doing, especially Van Jones. Glad that Cruz and Rubio strongly criticized the tone of Trump's rallies. Worried about the violence spiraling down. Sad, scary. Reminds me of Reagan saying, if they want blood let them have blood period, and how the American people supported him.

We must not forget that Nixon brought us to the edge of a police state with his Huston Plan, which called for suppressing “left-wing radicals” and the anti-war movement with domestic burglary, illegal electronic surveillance, opening the mail of domestic "radicals," and the creation of camps in Western states where anti-war protesters would be detained. Neither the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, or the National Security Agency objected to that plan to centralize intelligence operations in the White House. However, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, saw it as a threat to his power and objected. Fortunately, the subsequent Watergate scandal undermined Nixon’s power play.

But let us not forget, as documented in the powerful film, “The Day the 60s Died,” that in 1970 most of the American people opposed the anti-war movement even more than they opposed the Vietnam War. So when the National Guard shot and killed protesters at Kent State and Jackson State, though those protesters threatened no lives, most Americans supported those actions.

Recalling that history, both in Germany (which faced a “threat” from “socialism” as we may here) and in this country in the late 60s, leads me to be very concerned about the nature of protest demonstrations. So when Van last night on CNN said , “I do not support the”shut it down” approach," I agree with him. Traditional nonviolent civil disobedience is both more moral and more effective.

While explaining that one reason protesters try to stop speakers from speaking is that they otherwise get little or no media coverage and that kind of disruption gets attention, Van recommended that protestors at Trump rallies make their statement early and then allow themselves to be peacefully arrested or removed.

No doubt many young people and their older supporters will tell me that as a white man, I am not entitled to make any such recommendations. But the threat of fascism impacts me as well, which gives me the right to speak. Trying to impose our opinions with anger-rooted force or stop others from speaking, even if it is with “nonviolent” force, can easily lead to a downward spiral. So us old folks who experienced that threat in the late 60s feel compelled to speak up. And I thank Van and CNN (who continues to call out Trump this morning) for giving voice to my concern.