Resistance is Futile

So, Van Jones resigned and concerned citizens are rightly taking credit, while others plot their revenge.

Two questions:

1) Will the person the Administration appoints be substantively different from Mr. Jones?

2) What do you think the narrative of this will be in 30 days, if not less?

I think the answers are obvious, given that the well-informed segment of the population, which depends upon the Responsible Press^™ for information, is and will remain clueless about what was really going on here. This is because the problem is much larger than what you imagine it to be.

Two things will happen. First, a narrative will be constructed - is already be constructed - by the Responsible Press^™ that Mr. Jones was a victim of a vicious, unprincipled right-wing hit. The well-informed will accept it uncritically and tame in-house Conservatives, like David Brooks, will "concede" there is "something to that." They will consider this an "ugly episode" that distracted from serious public policy conversations.

Second, when the Administration, either through it's next "Green Jobs Czar" or not, advances the identical policies that they would have if Jones were still in the seat, if anyone resists, the cry will be "See? You won't compromise! You're hard-liners. We got rid of Jones for you, and still you reject any bipartisan effort in enacting these vital policies!"

Van Jones was at least a known quantity. It might have been easier to thwart the substance of the policies they want if he had stayed on. Getting rid of him is surely an accomplishment, of sorts. But really in the great scheme of things, it is small beer. If this is the height of triumph for opponents of Progressivism, they're in a sorry state indeed.

Update, 09/09/09: NYT writing the narrative