|
Reading through David Sirota's righteous entry, I was at once both encouraged by his passion for defending Van Jones and dismayed by the casual, utterly condescending Kos-like dismissals of those who seek the truth behind 9/11 as mere quacks. Most of these dismissals came from readers who posted comments, but even Mr. Sirota's entry contained at least one.
For the record, there is no single "9/11 Truther" movement of which I am aware. There are those who choose to engage in the worst forms of speculation, trying to bolster their ideas about what really happened with hypotheses that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Yet there are those of us who believe that, if nothing else, criminal negligence was the main thing that allowed the attacks to occur on that terrible day eight years ago this Friday. The latter group deserves, if nothing else, serious consideration and support from the left if for no other reason than a a full and honest accounting of what allowed the attack may finally be put on the public record (as opposed to the whitewash we were saddled with).
Part of the reason the left is so weak against the far right is that it refuses to support its own - even when doing so has little or no political risk. Van Jones signed a petition by people who honestly seem to believe, if nothing else, that the Bush-Cheney regime had more than enough time and information with which to take some sort of preventive action to stop the attack from being carried out. It's part of a pattern of criminal negligence in the previous regime, one proven so disastrously in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's not such an extreme question for any sensible American to ask. Yet it is lumped in with the people who, for better or worse, think that there was more active involvement and who have chosen to subscribe to unprovable notions. As a result, a sane, progressive voice of reason in the White House has been forced to leave because he asked questions. It is only coincidence that those questions happened to be ones the powerful - in their zeal to protect their own at any cost (so long as the rest of us pay it) - would rather not be asked at all.
And so, for that reason, yet another lesson was reiterated about Obama and his inner circle: far right crazies will always be given deferential treatment, while progressives - no matter how rational, competent, effective, and passionate - are expendable. That is the larger hurt in all of this mess over Van Jones. Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers, and the left is supposed to be about (among other things) welcoming both. When we don't do that, when we dismiss even the most rational of questions and treat the people asking them like pariahs, what do we gain? Nothing. But as Van Jones' dismissal from the White House demonstrates, we do have plenty to lose.
|
STATE BLOGS
