Open Left - Jim Jones

A Fairly Conservative Jim Jones as National Security Advisor

Matt Stoller — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:43:31 GMT

A few months ago at an event for a group of youngish Democrats in DC, I ran into one of General Jim Jones's staffers at the US Chamber of Commerce. It's odd to find a Democrat at the US Chamber of Commerce, since that is one of the most partisan and ideologically conservative groups in the country. We had a nice chat, and he essentially led me on to believe that Jones was heading up the Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy to make some money after his time in the military. I don't know how much stock to put in this conversation, but it's quite common for generals to make money after leaving the military, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jones just didn't know or care that he was working for a hardcore conservative group. Military leaders respect industry leaders, and vice versa.

Anyway, this conversation became relevant recently because Jones is going to be Obama's National Security Advisor, and he'll place special emphasis on energy security. I have some background in the politics of climate change, so I spent time on the plane today reading through the recommendations of his energy center to get a sense of this man's priorities and thought processes. While I don't know him or how he works, after reading Jones's transition plan I have come to share the Center for American Progress's Brad Johnson's hope that Obama is setting energy policy and Jones is on the periphery of any policy formulation role.

Based on this policy document, it's clear that Jones is not only not a progressive, but stands in clear opposition to the need to reconceptualize how our society uses and distributes energy. Dealing with climate change is not about switching gas powered cars for battery operated Teslas, it's about changing from a mindset where consuming resources at an ever increasing rate is seen as a virtue to a mindset that focuses on community, sustainability, and ruthless cooperation to ward off the greatest threat humanity has ever seen.

Jones diagnoses the energy problem within the context of national security and business interests, and in doing so, he's pretty reasonable. He discusses the economic costs of energy shocks, energy poverty, and resource nationalism, but he is essentially as conservative as it is possible to be on the substance without outright denying global warming. For instance, he argues that "whenever government tries to pick winners and losers, whether through burdensome regulations, central planning, or open-ended subsidies, it fails, and taxpayers and consumers pay the price." But he also argues that the US should commit to and expand clean coal and nuclear energy with huge Federal subsidies, while eventually phasing out renewable energy tax credits after twelve years.

It's pretty dishonest to argue for specific energy technologies, including a fund controlled by fossil-based utilities with taxpayer capital, while arguing that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers, but it's also standard DC fare. In keeping with this tilt, Jones argues that "climate policies must not provide a revenue windfall to the government", suggesting that carbon taxes are off the table, and that national climate policy should be contingent on an international agreement. For good measure, Jones also thinks the Clean Air Act should not regulate carbon, and that Federal standards should preempt state standards. I'm not sure if he means that California's greenhouse gas laws would be invalidated, but that's what Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce were trying to get done, so I wouldn't be surprised.

All in all, this is what CAP's Brad Johnson describes as a rehash Bush's policy of "Don't just sit there, do nothing." Considering Jones's portfolio is on the national security front, and that he wants to focus on energy, this conservative ideological tilt translated into policy is something to note. Whether Jones was simply operating at the behest of the people paying his bills, whether he's going to take clear orders from Obama, and what the ultimate policies are going to be, are unknowable. Jones's positions on energy are to the right of Obama's, but they are fairly mainstream within the cross-section of DC in both parties that rejects denying climate change outright but wants to find a solution to the problem that involves keeping the same people in charge who got us into the mess in the first place.

Jim Jones for NSA? I'll drink that Kool-Aid.

krikkit4 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:11:25 GMT

I've been holding off on even a tentative verdict regarding the transition from the lame-duck Bush to the incoming hope-duck Obama administration. Partly because I just don't know. Partly because I'm remaining cautiously optimistic. Partly because I feel like I'm cursed and that my cynicism and skepticism, coupled with my hope and pride, if made public, might just jinx everything and ruin Obama's presidency. Okay, I've obviously just been watching way too much Twin Peaks lately.

(And by "watching" I mean obsessively and consecutively beaming the entire series into my skull. And by "lately" I mean in the past three days. And by "too much" I mean not nearly enough because, honestly, Twin Peaks was a watershed moment/phenom in television and American history and in a just world ABC would still be airing new episodes once a week and showcasing the best and most unique in television writing, production, directing and acting. Oh well.)

And, partly because the Sky has been Falling for so many on the left that I just really couldn't get with the chorus of naysayers. Not because those sounding the alarms on the left are Chicken Littles and wrong about Obama being Clinton Redux - I've had the same fear - but just because homogeneity is just not my thing and always induces illustrious yawns. (At least I think they look illustrious.)

But this recent front page diary about Obama's pick for National Security Advisor by Chris just screams for my attention.
In the diary, which relies on CNN's reporting, Chris bemoans the likely appointment of General Jim Jones because he is not a progressive. He then goes on to note that no one else on Obama's national security team is progressive either. And with names like Biden, Clinton, Napolitano and Gates (ugh) it's not hard to get a bit frustrated. As Chris makes clear he is.

And, honestly, I'm frustrated too.

It would be great if Obama were to stock his cabinet full of progressives. It would be more than great. It would be fantastic. It would be bold and daring and worthy of the mantra of Change. It would also pretty much fly in the face of how he ran the (largely under the radar) national security aspect of his campaign.

It was clear from very early on that Obama was not a genuine progressive when it came to national security issues. Whatever "genuine progressive" means. (I'll return to this later.) Of course this has always been vague and is probably due to a lack of progressives ever being in such positions in the first place.

What Obama was crystal clear about was that he was not opposed to war but "dumb wars" and that his opposition to the Iraq War was based on his opinion of it as being dumb. Which it was.

It was clear early on that Obama's foreign policy would look something like Bush 41's. Which, honestly, wasn't marked by many, if any, setbacks or screw ups. Yeah, the first Gulf War was an imperial adventure but at least we won. And we had full international support (basically) which was, quite bizarrely, the linchpin for many opponents of the second Gulf War. And it was the (Clinton-era) sanctions that really screwed Iraq.

Obama also made it clear, very early on, that he was serious about the Middle East peace process and that he was not going to be a canvass on which AIPAC and the ADL would be free to paint to their hearts' content. In fact, he enjoyed a miniature scandal or two by mentioning (correctly) that the Palestinians were the ones suffering most of all in the conflict and by (again, correctly) not identifying Israel as one of the United States' top three allies in response to the Israel Question at an early debate.

What does this all have to do with Jim Jones?

The guy is actually reasonable when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

And the rabidly pro-Israel brigades in their dank corners of the Internets seem to really hate and fear the guy for this very reason.

Which brings me to a question that I kind of posed earlier on:

What does a progressive foreign policy really like in regards to national security?

I don't ask this to be a jerk or to question beg or because I think I have the complete answer and certainly not to get Chris' (one of my favorite bloggers) goat.

I ask because I really am not too sure about what sane and pragmatic progressives would do in such positions. Ending the war in Iraq seems like one. Direct diplomacy with non-allied nations would seem to be another. Cutting down on the saber-rattling would have to be key--and really just common sense. Those all seem to be covered. We might even get a direct presence in Sudan to stop the genocide. That would be nice.

But how about Mid East peace? At least an honest and hearty attempt? Not the handshakes and masquerades that AIPAC and Likud's favorite president, Bush, gave to the Israelis, Palestinians and foreign press. But an actual change. How about an actual, good old fashioned, college try? Even if the college in question is West Point...

That would have to factor in. Wouldn't it?

The answer is, of course, Yes. Of course.

Unfortunately, when it has come to mainstream figures making sense and acting equitable and just about the Israel-Palestine issue, most of them have been conservatives or centrists. This is assuredly mostly the frothingly pro-Israel media's fault and also a problem within the institutions that govern themselves.

It's hard enough to be an unabashed progressive in the United States and expect to be taken seriously. If you're considered to be anywhere slightly close to pro-Palestinian or even neutral and even-handed then you are considered unserious and probably a little crazy, depending on how far you backpedal once The Lobby gets into action.

So, we have people like Pat Buchanan and Jim Jones and even George H.W. Bush who make some amount of sense on this issue but who are decidedly not progressives. And then we've got ultra-progressives like Robert Wexler and John Conyers and Russ Feingold who tend to, at best, roll over when it comes to the issue.

Wes Clark seems to be the exception to prove the rule. But then again he was a Republican until 2004. Though he is a progressive now. It's murky but I think my argument pretty much holds though this does get into tendentious territory. (And honestly, the lack of consideration that Clark has received by the Obama camp is probably one of the most frustrating things of all.)

So, faced with the prospect of respected (blah, I know) establishment (double blah) figures who are not likely to face much scrutiny from the pro-Israel press or the cowed congress and who might stir things up a bit and be a net benefit to the cause of Mid East peace but who happen to be center-right or bipartisan at best or the usual chickenshit Democrats who fall over themselves to fawn over AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby I think the choice is pretty clear.

At least if the Middle East peace process is considered a focal point for the incoming administration. Which I think it is.

I could be dead wrong. But that's how it seems to be shaking out at the moment.

Yes, it seems like everyone in national security positions in Obama's cabinet got the most important national security question of this generation (so far) wrong at the offset. But then again Obama didn't. And he is the boss....

Yes, it would be a lot better if this stupid "team of rivals" garbage that makes beltway gasbags cream in their pants got put to rest. It's so 19th century and Obama is supposed to be our first real 21st century president. But then again there is some merit to the idea. Though at least one token progressive in national security would be quite a bit more responsible and reassuring...

So, while Obama's national security cabinet doesn't particularly inspire hope and change and usher in images of limitless fields of blue cotton candy, the Jones pick is not likely to induce ulcers in my mind's stomach.

Cross-posted at Justice Addict.

General Jim Jones Likely NSA Pick

Chris Bowers — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:39:10 GMT

CNN is reporting that retired General Jim Jones is the leading candidate to become Obama's national security advisor. There is good reason to believe this reporting, given that Jones was one of sixteen names on the "semi-short list" for Obama's Vice-President. While Jones was taken out of contention when it was revealed he supported John McCain, in the third debate Obama still mentioned him as an advisor he would "surround" himself with when elected President. So yeah, this report is probably accurate.

Although not as bad as keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense (I'm not sure any cabinet appointment could be that bad), it would still be a very disappointing selection. Jones, as already noted, supported McCain, and was also offered the deputy Secretary of State job in the Bush administration. He turned the offer down, but turning down an offer like that from the Bush administration in mid-2007 isn't exactly a progressive master stroke. Not many people are keen to jump on board an administration with a sub-30% approval rating and only twenty months left in office.

Let's say that all of the leading contenders for Obama's national security team end up in his administration. This would give him a core foreign policy team of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Jim Jones, and Robert Gates. That is, overall, a center-right foreign policy team lacking any clear progressives (at least, foreign policy and national security progressives). All of them, with the possible exception of Jones, supported the Iraq war from the outset. At least two of them, Gates and Napolitano, opposed withdrawing troops as recently as 2007 (although the new agreement with Iraq has rendered that debate moot). Also, two members of this group, Gates and Jones, supported McCain. This team would oversee roughly 60% of discretionary federal budget spending, military operations, and all diplomatic relations.

I know everyone is obsessed with the "team of rivals" idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.

It is just so very frustrating. It seems like the only place progressives are making any gains is in the House. We are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far. I guess everyone gets to play in Obama's administration, except progressives. Adam B and I talked about this subject for an hour today on Radio Times, and you can listen to it here.