Why the Sudden Furor Over "Czars"?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
September 19, 2009 5:35pm CST
"CZAR" - that old term from the days of the Russian monarchy - even SOUNDS somehow sinister and evil; it evokes images of a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic, doesn't it? Did it sound THAT different back when George W. Bush had a bunch of them? How about when nearly every President since FDR was appointing them?
The term "czar" as applied to people who work within a Presidential Administration wqas actually manufactured by the media because it's easier to just call someone a (fill in the blank) czar than to say their official, much longer title which usually started with something like "director", "adviser" or "administrator". Former "Czar" Van Jones' actual title was "special adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality", for example. Can you blame anyone for not wanting to have to say that day in and day out? I'm not sure I could remember it all ONCE...lol Through the years some of these - whatever they were - have been confirmed by the Senate and some have not been. It's only been since President Obama's inauguration that there has been more than two words said about them but now to hear Glenn Beck talk they're surely one of the signs of the impending end of the world! Here's more information from an article to which I linked below:
The White House on Tuesday pushed back at the criticism of too many czars.
"Hiring smart and qualified people to coordinate between agencies and with the White House is nothing new," said White House spokesman Adam Abrams. "While some may now be applying new labels or engaging in revisionist history, the reality is that every president dating back to Nixon had similar positions in their administrations."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of political science at Princeton, says the term czar -- a throwback to the Russian monarchy - --- evokes an image of a dictator.
"It's something of a made up controversy," said Zelizer. "It's not even clear that [Obama] has more people in these kind of positions than Bush did. It's just trying to feed a general argument that government is too big."
Some conservatives have argued Obama has as many as 40 czars, up from the count of 36 that The Washington Post said Bush had during his two terms.
(End of excerpt)
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13343828
Depending on who you believe Obama has thirty-some - forty czars while George W. Bush had somewhere between 36 and 47. That's really not that big a difference, is it? I know many of you felt Van Jones didn't belong in the Administration but what do you know about all of Bush's appointees - were they all pure as the driven snow or did you simply not pay any attention to them? I know I don't recall the Democrats paying any attention to them!
Annie
2 people like this
10 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
20 Sep 09
Annie, this is what conservatives do, and they are very good at it. They try to take terms that envoke fear, or anger and use them to manipulate those who will listen to them. I think I remember Reagan had many Czar's, which during the cold war sounded even worse than it does today, but conservatives had NO PROBLEM with it then. This is nothing more than propaganda being pushed by conservative right wing hate radio. This is another example of the fear mongering that is going on right now on the right, and it only makes them look more and more like a party hate and fear.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
21 Sep 09
"Yes, I see how it's the same. I mean, all the czars are the same, right? Hell, why not... All politicians are proving to be the same. The only problem I see with some of Obama's czars is that they're PART OF THE LEFT LUNATIC FRINGE."
Did you know that Bush had more czars than Obama does? And, how many of those do you think were right wing nut jobs?
"Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc, could have all had czars and, maybe, just maybe, the evil, ignorant right-wing wasn't up in arms because these czars weren't LUNATICS."
I don't know what you consider a "LUNATIC", but I am sure that you could find some, I just don't feel the need to do the research right now. But, maybe I will have time later.
"You'd curl up in a ball and convulse if a birther was appointed a czar. But it's nothing more than propaganda being pushed by conservative right wing hate radio when people speak out against members of the LEFT LUNATIC FRINGE. lol"
When Bush hired many former PNAC members, and picked one to be his vice president I knew that we would be invading IRAQ, I was really surprised it took as long as it did. You can call the Bush administration what you will, but I consider many of them to be LUNATICS.
"You, sir, are a racist."
Who in the hell are you calling a racist??????
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
22 Sep 09
"Your racist tendencies are blatantly obvious! Why else would you bash conservatives? It's common knowledge that disagreement equals racism. Wise up."
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I think you will need a road map to show me where you get from my response to the dream world you live in.
Good luck with that logic.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
20 Sep 09
Yes, I see how it's the same. I mean, all the czars are the same, right? Hell, why not... All politicians are proving to be the same. The only problem I see with some of Obama's czars is that they're PART OF THE LEFT LUNATIC FRINGE.
Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc, could have all had czars and, maybe, just maybe, the evil, ignorant right-wing wasn't up in arms because these czars weren't LUNATICS.
Which American President has appointed czars with views the equivalent of a truther? The Republican equivalent in this day and age would be a birther.
You'd curl up in a ball and convulse if a birther was appointed a czar. But it's nothing more than propaganda being pushed by conservative right wing hate radio when people speak out against members of the LEFT LUNATIC FRINGE. lol
Now that's logic you can't argue with.
Eeeeeesh...
:/
You, sir, are a racist.
:)
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
20 Sep 09
My husband and I were talking about this several weeks ago when the "Green Czar" stepped down. You make some really excellent points but, I just didn't want to hear from conservatives that it was ok when Bush appointed members but, not when Obama did it.
3 people like this
@cotton0821 (259)
• United States
20 Sep 09
The issue with czars is the consolidation of power in the executive branch of government. The constitution requires that close advisers to the president be approved by Congress. Obama's czars have not been approved by anyone but the executive branch. They are not accountable to anyone but the executive branch of government nor are their powers clearly defined except by the executive branch. No one really has a problem with any president appointing czars, it is about how they are appointed and the powers they are given.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
20 Sep 09
I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what a czar is. How can they? There IS no official criteria for a 'czar' - though Xfahctor has provided the best one by far. I'm pretty sure most of the hype over Obama's czars is tied into our pundit friends at Fox News. I remember commenting back when Bush was in office that position of "czar" sounded terribly foreboding. I was told to hush by my Fox News loving parents. Now they too are screaming about how terrible czars are...but only after they heard about it from their new favorite "commentator" Beck.
I'm not saying the outcry is purely because of Fox News, of course, because I know it isn't. Unfortunately, Fox News tends to taint all the legitimate outcries against the government.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 Sep 09
Once again the "bush did it" defense rears its ugly head. For a guy who is supposed to be all about what Bush wasn't, Obama's supporters seem awfully quick to equate him with Bush.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
20 Sep 09
The term "czar" is subject to interpretation and fluid. but the settled definition seems to be an advisor or department leader apointed by the president but not aproved by congress. I think every president in recent times has added to the number, Obama has added 18 of these posisiotns since his election.
I guess my problem with it seems to be of the same as the general concensus...the consolidation of power to and the expansion of the executive branch and the circumventing of the legislative branch, in a couple ways, first, some how, these apointments are not subject to the aproval of the executive branch and second, in a lot of ways, these czars in some cases create de facto law, a primary function of the legislative branch.
"I know many of you felt Van Jones didn't belong in the Administration but what do you know about all of Bush's appointees - were they all pure as the driven snow or did you simply not pay any attention to them? I know I don't recall the Democrats paying any attention to them!"
I never paid much attention to czars until Bush came a long, he woke me up to a lot of truth about government with his blatent actions. I learned enough to know that they were there for a purpose greater than what the surface showed, as to the specifics of Bush's czars back grounds, I never got that far before he got out of ofice, but it would be interesting to see. However, the people Obama has apointed in some cases are pretty out there, REALLY REALLY out there. that isn't smear, that's their won words and writings, not cherry picked words and writings, entirely in context it's still chilling.
Another important point, it isn't about Van jones or his minor position, or susten and his minor position...annie, again, look at the large picture and ask a couple important questions to your self.. what does it say about the man who surrounds himself with people like this? do people who say and think the way some of these people do, done what they have done, have any rightfull place in the united States government in any capacity? What does it say about the direction of our government when people like this are given a place in the government?
I don't recall a lot of democrats screaming about Bush's czars either, but like T.A.R.P and his disreguard for Posse Commitatus, I really wish they had.
2 people like this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
20 Sep 09
Considering how the Democrats bad mouthed Bush while he was in office, don't you think they would have complained about his czars, if there was anything wrong with them?
I really don't know why czars are an issue. I suppose, with the economy being as it is, people don't like the idea of someone the Senate hasn't approved, getting our hard earned money. They probably don't even like the approved ones getting our money, either.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 Sep 09
Prs. Obama has relegated his cabinet to almost non issues. Van Jones (for example) was to have much more authority and influence than the Secretary of the Energy, Labor or Agriculture, yet they are supposed to be advising the president on such matters.
But the problem isn't completely about some of the unsavory people Obama has named as Czars, the people he's surrounded himself with in his cabinet aren't must better.
Obama himself asked us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with.
So what is wrong with judging him on the basis that he asked us to?
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
20 Sep 09
I don't think either party's president should be using czars. There's too much potential for corruption. I say so away with them!
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
20 Sep 09
I don't mind czars. Just not an army of them. Bush had too many in my opinion. Same for Obama. IT just means more money spent that belongs to the american tax payers. What I would like to see is a justification for each czar and what we are getting in return on each one for the money and benefits we are paying for on them.
Some are a good investment....some not so much.
1 person likes this
@satan88 (584)
• United States Minor Outlying Islands
19 Sep 09
the tsars were absolute monarchs before the russian revolution. Some were benevolent and some were passivists and some were terrible and violent people. They had absolute power and answered to no one not even the nobles.. i've never heard of anyone call politicans czars before. but not all the russian tsars were bad.
2 people like this
