I think that the subtext of the following utterance by former Obama official Van Jones belies the claim that identity politics or the Democratic Party have anything to do with tolerance in the real sense of the word:
“I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn’t lose the black vote,” a cheerful Van Jones told MSNBC this afternoon.
“President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does,” he added.
What is being widely reported is the first part of the remark. That Barack Obama would not lose the black vote if he came out as gay. But the second part — “no matter what he does” — is a lot more revealing, especially if read in the context of coming out as gay. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Jones, by choosing the “Obama comes out as gay” hypothetical, clearly posits it as the worst possible thing he could do. Saying “no matter what he does” right after that clinches it.
Gay is worse than murder.
Or anything else.
Either Van Jones is channeling vintage Jesse Helms or else he’s implying that black people in general are guilty of the worst sort of anti-gay bigotry (which would be racist if Jones were held up to his own standards, if he has any). Bear in mind we are talking about a demagogue who claims that libertarians hate gays, lesbians, piercings, and (the catchall) “ya’ll”:
Jones began his speech by citing his six months of work in the White House before launching into a tirade against the “so-called Libertarians.”
In citing the Libertarian principle of economic liberty, Jones stated “They’ve taken their despicable ideology and used it a wrecking ball, that they have painted red, white and blue, to smash down every good thing in America.”
Jones continued, “They say they’re Patriots but they hate everybody in America who looks like us. They say they love America but they hate the people, the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings, ya know ya’ll.”
The above is pure slime. As a libertarian, I resent it.
And in November I will remember that the man who spews this hateful bigotry was a White House official.
Your tax dollars at work.
Comments
10 responses to “Gay. Not that there’s anything worse than that…”
Eric, sorry, I didn’t read.
You just need to know that I support you!
I’m like that!
“All cottony, and holding up balls.”
Got an agent who says this is gonna work.
Hasn’t called me ‘jock strap’ to my face yet, but hey, wouldn’t be surprised if he waxed on about how he was a best friend to ‘Jack Sprat’.
Are we sure this isn’t an Ed Wood Jr. script?
Have you been listening to Ron & Fez?
“The worst thing you can call a man!”
Van Jones is too stupid to realize he is calling black voters an obedient wholly owned voting block?
I don’t at all think he didn’t realize it… but as far as he’s concerned, that’s a GOOD thing, something they should be PROUD of.
That is pretty slimy.
On the other hand, what polling on the subject I’ve seen suggests that the black community, such as the phrase has any meaning, is significantly less gay-friendly than many other blocs.
Thus reinforcing Bram’s point about the entire point of Jones’ rant – that as far as the Democrats are concerned this year, they don’t have to care about Black people because they “own” those votes.
As others have said elsewhere* (especially on the subject of the “gay community” and voting Democrat), being a “captive” voting bloc is bad for your interests, because whoever “owns” you doesn’t have to actually care about what you want**.
(* Probably on this very blog, but I’m a thousand times too lazy to check for specific instances.
** This is one of the strengths of, say, the NRA. They’ll rate any candidate on the set of policies they care about, and they’ll endorse whoever has the better score, regardless of party – or in the case of a tie, I believe they either endorse both or offer a “doesn’t matter”.
Thus, they can court those Democrats willing to buck the general party line on guns by credibly offering them the support of NRA members against any Republican who is less gun-friendly.
If gun-owners, however, were a captive bloc of the Republicans, they’d have less influence.)
Perhaps Van Jones and AG Holder should have a serious talk about race. Just sayin’.
Oh, and Van Jones is obviously a bigot and a liar.
If you convince someone their life will improve- they will vote for you, regardless of what group they may or may not be apart of. The problem is life improvement- that is personal, but class struggles, you can sell to an entire group at once.
“The Monolith is strong in this One!”
Feh. Nothing trumps, “Free Stuff!” Never has. Obama could eat live babies on the steps of the WH and his followers would Tweet recipes for him.
I cannot say that this well-written article has changed my mind about Van Jones. It has merely confirmed it.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, when the evidence was all in, Van Jones made the decision to become a C/communist. That is strong evidence of deficient thinking skills. We are seeing more of the same.
Recall that Valerie Jarrett, probably the White House staff person Obama trusts the most, once said that she had been keeping an eye on Van Jones.
And not for “What dumbass thing will this jerk utter next?”