Political Pundits

Political Pundits 

A host of his own show and series, author of two New York Times' bestsellers (The Green Collar Economy, Rebuild the Dream), CNN political commentator, and much more, Van Jones is enlisted as a Change-Maker to the public by his qualified works and honorary awards given to him by his performances. Jones also have two official websites (VanJones, CNN) that goes into a deeper depth of his profile, which gives off more of his life’s history achievements such as his 2007 enlistment into law by George W. Bush, founder of four charitable organizations, embarked on social and environmental law, including his position as an advisor for the Green Jobs to Barack Obama in 2009.

As an active member in politics, Jones has made a few comments and predictions for the future in the coming that has been given both negative and positive responses from the public, which is completely expected as many have different opinions about the matter at hand, but overall, Van Jones is a well-respected man whose viewings have been approved and looked upon by the majority of people who shares his thoughts. Below are a few examples from his previous statements. "I made a prediction after the 2016 election. I thank God this prophecy came true."

*IMAGE INCLUDES LINK* 

What if a US presidential candidate refuses to concede after an election?

*IMAGE INCLUDES LINK*

To highlight Jones' point, he viewed the presidential selection process in America as what could occur if a candidate decided to not concede. He had discovered cracks in the legal system that could possibly predict the presidential election in years to come if not fixed. He starts out by stating a fact within the form of a question, that based on the constitution - a candidate running for president may lose the popular vote, the majority in the electoral college, deny conceding, manipulate certain procedures within the government, and will still come out winning the presidency. He explains this fault not to be of the law itself but the tradition that has existed for decades. However, the concession speech alone - based on Jones’ testimony - is why we fail to witness bloody riots and animosity after the election. Based on my understanding, the concession speech is given by the losing candidate as a public statement to the winning contender, accepting their victory in what I like to consider as good sportsmanship in a way. However, this is not mandatory, simply just a normal thing that has been happening for years now. Jones' article goes into the causes that may occur if one losing candidate chooses to not concede and give a concession speech. “Well, what could happen might terrify you. I think it should.” - Van Jones

Van Jones: The LA riots changed America. They also changed me

*IMAGE INCLUDES LINK*

Jones’ explores the effects that the LA riots have brought upon our nation as well as the unchanged of what’s happening today. I’m sure many are aware of the event that took place in 1992 on April 29th, revolving around the incident of Rodney King who was badly beaten by four white police officers in Los Angeles. It was the first beating to go publicly viral on the internet in regards to police brutality, which goes uncommonly as recordings of such has been filmed numerous times in this digital era. Jones views this past event in history as his reason for why he entered the field of law and its system. He stated that not much has changed since then in ways that many have hoped as we are still confided in a country that is still to this day dealing with racial uprising and an imperfect justice system.

Is this the dawn of a vigilante era?

*IMAGE INCLUDES LINK*

This is yet another example of Jones’ perspectives on the criminal justice system and its rulings. This article explores the verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse’s - a white teen who killed two Black Lives Matter protesters and another during a shootout in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020 August - release. "Are we moving toward a nation that condones White vigilante violence?" - Van Jones 

This alone sends a message to other offenders that they are free to commit armed crimes to exploit their own versions of the law and later claim self-defense. The effect of this ruling will be to rotate the political outlook of America into something much more of an American frontier storyline. Jones’ revealed that this outcome likely endorses a dangerous pathway to reaching an American celebrity status. I took this as him saying that committing wrongful acts plays a part into reaching a knowledgeable awareness in a person’s identity that makes them in a way ‘famous’ or popular. Jones’ also stated that this decision in Rittenhouse’s release sends a message to African Americans as well: “that there are two Americas & the system seems to be rigged against us.” - Van Jones

In Jones’ perspective, racial implication is easily witnessed as white males in the US tend to be permitted to take the rules and regulations of the law into their own hands, using different degrees of violence to justify their own perception of law and order. He then goes into ‘putting oneself into another’s shoes’ by looking at this from another side. Now what if an African American male decided to take matters into their own hands to enforce the law and in their vision to keep the peace by invading buildings and assassinating ordinary citizens? The plot would be the same but the verdict would be a different story. Based on Jones’ thoughts, the United States only permits white males to act in such a manner as no man of a dark tone could appear out of anywhere within our state loaded with a rifle, killing three individuals, to only get released and saluted as a national hero. A single verdict within the courtroom may erupt in a national tragedy for unpredictable consequences and extended issues that can either make or break our nation. Jones’ described the verdict as a seed, eventually it will bear fruit that will mimic the cast of a formidable, blood-soaked political panorama of America until a change is made.