Czarist Nonsense

The George W. Bush presidency brought both the Republican Party and the conservative movement low, and it's distressing to watch the GOP base get whipped into a frenzy by cynical demagogues while its politicians do the only thing they know how to do -- pander to the people making the loudest, most aggrieved noises.

Demagoguery and aggrievement are nothing new in American politics. But what's strange is the scattershot nature and incoherence of the attacks on Obama. Usually, politicians -- even demagogues -- summon a sense of history, shared experience, and cultural traditions to move people. But there's little evidence of those things in most of the critiques of Obama's policies by Republican politicians or tea party activists, little evident understanding of what the president is doing or how it might be improved upon, changed, or replaced. Scare words and phrases have supplanted arguments. Those words have historical meaning. Once, history gave those words power. But now they've been shorn of all context. It's a communist-fascist-socialist word salad.

One of the sillier examples of this is the crusade, by Glenn Beck and others, against Obama administration "czars." They already got the scalp of "green jobs czar" Van Jones, and now the attacks continue. "Czar" sounds scary, I guess, because it's a Russian word. Communists are taking over the government! Of course, the last real Russian Czar, Nicholas II, was executed by communists in 1917, so the historical reference is nonsensical. So is the substance of the attack. "Czar" is an informal -- and semi-ironic -- title that connotes a certain policy portfolio. It has been in use since at least the 1970s. As Dave Weigel noted in the Washington Independent, many "czars" actually occupy pre-existing jobs. Some of them been approved by the Senate. Some are mid-level appointees, and don't require Senate confirmation. A few have been appointed to new positions, such as "Afghanistan czar" Richard Holbrooke -- but most of them are well-credentialed.

So: Obama, the president, is appointing people to government positions that have certain policy coordination responsibilities. That's what presidents do. There may be questions to be raised about their job performance or past activities, but in that respect they are no different from hundreds of other political appointees. Yet, exploiting the notion that Obama must be up to something sinister, Republicans have seized upon the czar issue. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is running for governor of Texas, attacks the "czars" in today's Washington Post as an affront to the Constitution. It's bizarre. (And also sad that the Washington Post provides a forum for a specious argument.)

During the 1980s and 1990s, many conservatives had credible, coherent arguments to make about government policies and the nature of government itself. I sometimes agreed, more often disagreed. But their arguments had some heft: the liberal welfare state actually did have a lot of serious problems in the overlapping realms of policy and politics. Now, if I'm looking for a meaningful critique of Obama's policies and appointments, (with some exceptions of course) I'm just not going to find it on the right. Conservatism has, effectively, gone AWOL from the policy debate -- which is a great boon to Obama, but probably not so good for the American system.

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[shryock]

i begin to feel very very old.
i cannot believe people would fall for glenn beck and his 'boris and natasha' paranoia.
he sees spies in the woodwork, and czars in cars, and unmentionable people in the woodshed.
and he spreads his evil to people who follow him slavering after every crumb of his anti-wisdom.
if nothing else ever convinced me that the american school system has failed, this moment would.
how can so many people be so ignorant? and so proud to be ignorant?

[Freakpower]

Drop health care and cram campaign finance reform down Washington's throat through Reconciliation.
51 votes.
Do it for America.

And then give us health care reform.!

It's the F***ing money!
People get paid to stop reform, and do nothing!

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/czarist-nonsense_b_285754.html

[unitron]

The nice thing about having czars is getting to call their wives czarinas and all their little kids czardines.

"Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is running for governor of Texas, attacks the "czars" in today's Washington Post as an affront to the Constitution. It's bizarre."

Does that make her the bizarre czar?

[argyle]

yes, and cool name

[Hanforder]

This czar thing is just another piece of excrement the Teabaggers are throwing to see if it will stick. Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes all had czars. No problem there, right? Unaccountable to the people? Like Blackwater and the CIA and any number of Bush appointees? No problem there, right? In fact, you know who else had problems with czars and their lack of accountability? Bolsheviks! Those other red staters who lived to do Rush's, er, Russia's bidding. Useful idiots indeed.

[lastams]

The so-called 9-12 movement was promoted as a return to the spirit that united Americans after the tragedy of 9-11.
Within the diverse groups ranging from birthers to deathers to anti-abortion gun toting militias, there seems to be only one unifying force; their limitless hatred for the President of the United States.

Max Blumenthal writes in Altnet,
“When I dove into the angry mob with a camera, I captured scenes of self-proclaimed "real Americans" declaring that the community organizing group ACORN was Obama's version of Hitler's SS; that the President planned to establish concentration camps for right-wing dissidents; and that Obama was raising a private army in the guise of a civilian volunteer force. The death panel rumor is just one of a rapidly growing array of conspiracy theories reverberating through the Republican base. Each one is more hysterical than the last.”

The sheer ignorance of a large percentage of the American people is something that we will always have to contend with. The outrageous manipulation of that ignorance by right wing media and now the Republican Party itself, is something that we need to confront as a direct threat to our very system of government.

[a6intruder]

Reading your "description" calls up memories of the anti-war rallies during Bush's years. And the ignorant Americans you seem to loathe are Democrats who still think, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Socialism/­Fascism/Co­mmunism are still desirable ways to run a country. (By the way - I have difficulty with the terms Socialist or Fascist or Communist, too. I know he's one of those, but I've had a hard time figuring just which one.)

[pantherburns]

You know "he's one of those", but can't figure out which one. Perhaps if you knew what the terms meant you would have a better idea. Education is a wonderful thing. You should try it.

[Pragman]

I haven't heard a single Democrat advocate socialism OR communism OR fascism, let alone a bizarre hybrid of all 3.

I think you're bearing false witness.

[Eoin45]

"Democrats who still think, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Socialism/­­Fascism/C­o­mmunism are still desirable ways to run a country." This is a baseless bit of unsubtel and baseless exaggeration that has zero to do with reality. Did your hands get scratched knocking down that straw man?

[overd0g1]

The mediocre love democracy, since they know they have a permanent majority.

The poor love democracy because at least they have some voice, and sometimes they can get free goodies.

The rich love democracy, because the mediocre are easy to manipulate.

The competent non-rich minority tolerate democracy because they can't think of anything better, even though they are fed upon by everyone else.

[BachelorJohnnyCool]

I don't recall any outrage from the Right when that pompous blowhard, William Bennett, was commonly referred to as the "Drug Czar" during the Reagan administration.

[overd0g1]

Yes, they too are hypocrites. Does that somehow elevate the left?

[BachelorJohnnyCool]

No, it doesn't elevate anyone. It just shows that the people who are frothing at the mouth about the term "czar" don't remember that the Right didn't have any problem with it when it was being used by a Republican administration. What's your point?

[Landisrc]

I am fairly progressive with respect to my views on most subjects. It is usually difficult for me to find anything redeeming fro the Right Wing-nuts (e.g. Birthers, Teabaggers, Palinites, etc.); However, the recent demonstration in Washington of Saturday (9/12) did make me think that the point dealing with being fed-up with Washington is a good one. Listen up Liberals. Why do we still get Pork? Why no regulation of Banks and Wall Street? Why are a bunch of Congressmen and Senators on the take from the Health Insurance and Drug industry determining our health care policy and program? What ever happen to accountability for committing crime while in public Office? Are a few low ranking women in the Military following orders the best you can do? Why do we need THREE auto manufacturers? Here I do trust capitalism to weed out chaff from the wheat. Why can't we have decent public transportation as a first start to global warming? OK Democrats get your party in order and recognize that you are not much different than the RightWing Nuts (or Tips) unless you quit talking and really gives us change!

[lastams]

All true.
Would that the minority party would express these views as rationally as you have.
Instead they have supported, even embraced, the fringe of politics and have chosen
to incite the ignorant and biased to the very edge of violence.
The only rational dispute with this administration, or for that matter the status-quo,
bought and sold nature of our Congress, has come from the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
If I find any fault in your message, it is the implied assumption that there is a cohesive Democratic Party at all. Baucus, and Dodd, Carper and Landrieu, and the rest of the DLC corporate run puppets, might as well belong to another party entirely.

[Hanforder]

With apologies to the Beatles:

But if you go sayin' Obama is Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

[johnsonc20]

I have concluded that there is method to this Republican kooky madness. It is similar to what occurred under Clinton. You attack a moderate, somewhat spineless, Democratic President as being a socialist/­fascist/to­talitarian­/infidel, throwing everything including the kitchen sink. The press dutifully records your every word and demands pro and con discussions of every ridiculous utterance. Eventually you browbeat the ineffectual "leader" into adopting your agenda, though you never admit that he has done this and require further, wilder demands be met. It seems to work well with these Democratic Leadership Council-style Presidents.

[JBoy]

The problem with some of these Czars is that they haven't been properly vetted. Obama, therefore, becomes gulity by association when the skeletons are found in the closet. Same thing with ACORN.

[shanghaislim]

So because I. Scooter Libby was convicted........by association that would make the Vice President and his entire office guilty? I can get down with that thinking.

[Rogan]

You do know that nobody sane and rational thinks anything you say could possibly be worth listening to, as soon as you start saying crazy irrational things about ACORN, don't you? Out here in consensual reality, ACORN is about as negative and threatening as the Salvation Army.

[valkyrie607]

Ooh a trollie!

Hey listen JBoy, when you say "not properly vetted," are you saying that you think the FBI can't do its job? Cuz, in the absence of Senate confirmations, I do believe that it's up to the FBI to do background checks.

[genmanager]

If Senator Hutchinson is suggesting that appointing czars is an affront to the constitution, I would point out that the appointment of czars has been going on since 1933 with President Roosevelt who had 12 czars and 19 political appointees.
President Bush had 35 czars and 45 appointees, and President Obama has 31 czars and 33 appointees. Assuming these positions are appointed at the beginning of an administration and last throughout their length of term, I don't see our current president as doing anything different.
Please check out wikipedia for a list of presidential czars and appointees from 1933-present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#Summary_table_-_Number_of_czars_per_administration_.28see_the_sortable_table_below_for_details_and_references.29

[overd0g1]

And your point is? Everyone knows that FDR pissed on the constitution. Now it's a long standing tradition.

[valkyrie607]

Uh... pissing on the constitution is a long-standing tradition, no doubt. But appointing "czars" doesn't have anything to do with that. There's nothing unconstitutional about appointing people to work at jobs that don't quite rise to the level of requiring a congressional confirmation.

[EZD]

Oh now the leader of the Greatess Generation was pissing on the constitution, wow

[ProudMilVet]

My God, i wish we could go back to the days when people could disagree with one another while still being civil about it ! I truly believe this hateful atmosphere all started around 1972 with Watergate & Nixon & his Enemies list. Then Reagan gave it a boost when he referred to the word
liberal as "The Dirty L Word". Then in 1994 with Newt Gingrich & his scorched earth brand of politics & the attitude of Win at any cost. It continues today with the 24/7 ranting & raving of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity & the rest of Fox News. How sad & embarrassing for our country !

[audadvnc]

Right wingers, all. Reasonable people are willing to be civil, but those who live for power and control don't care about civility - they want to rule over you.

[ariveria]

it is all shrill with no facts. there use to arguments facts ideas something that was debatable.

there could be valid arguments about health care. death panels, illegal aliens have no place in the debate.

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information craz of fox news.
the veiw 5/20/09

[a6intruder]

Actually, it was the devoted National SOCIALIST, Josef Goebbels. And PLEASE try to proof read what you've written. Small mistakes - sure. But your comment is mostly gibberish. Work on it.

[ariveria]

duh

but do you have any idea how many beck followers have posted and accept it as fact.
LOL

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information czar fox news
the view 5/20/09

[EngineerBill]

How wonderful is it to see Sen. Hutchinson worry about the potential abuse of presidential power. I'm sure we can all find instances where she fought the previous administration and its adherence to the concept of "the Plenary power of the unitary executive. I'm sure she asked really tough questions to John Roberts and Sam Alito about the abuse of the power of the executive branch. Yup, that's Kay Bailey Hutchinson alright. Taking to task the Bush administration for warrant-less wiretapping, firing U.S. attorneys for political purposes, etc. I'm sure it's all there right?

[nk007]

EngineerBill:

I think you are too rational. Republicans, like Sen. Hutchinson, are not at all bothered by their hypocrisy. All they are interested in is appealing to the their base: the loyal army followers of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, by attacking everything Obama does. I bet you, if tomorrow Obama announced that he was adopting everything in the Republican platform they will still attack him; accusing him of stealing their ideas to implement a socialist/­communist/ Nazi/ fascist/ Muslim/Black Nationalist-Kenyan, take over of America by ACORN. The issue is not Obam's policies; rather, the issue is who Barak Obama is. Obviously, since the followers of Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity can't impeach him because of who he is, they have decided to disrupt his administration by throwing the"kitchen sink" at him.

[Lee323]

John McQuaid: "But what's strange is the scattershot nature and incoherence of the attacks on Obama."

Considering that many of these people are reacting through their limbic systems (fear, paranoia, "fight or flight"), incoherence doesn't seem strange at all. They've in good measure bypassed their rational cortical regions where coherent thought resides in favor of more primitively responding parts of the brain.

The mentality is very similar to the witch hunts in Salem, Mass in 1692.

They're just hunting a different witch this time (read "czar" ... or "Muslims, Nazis, socialists, communists, fascists.")

If you're interested, google the current demagogue du jour, Sarah Palin, and her witch hunter "pastor."

[wethepeople3884]

Glad to see another well-known republican politician in the legislative branch take their marching orders from the beck nation. Its not a travesty that obama appointed people to these positions but more so that some of these positions have not yet existed until now. Who in government was addressing such issues before them? Should they all be confirmed by the senate? Probably but should partisan politics and the glen beck show play a role in deciding who is put in these jobs? definitely not.

She said Van Jones had socialist ties like we are living in the 1950s. The USSR no longer exists. Communism is not really any sort of legitimate threat to this government or country. The bigger threat is the boundless and pervasive tactics of misinformation and propaganda. If information is power then what is disinformation? It is just as powerful and much more harmful.

[audadvnc]

"Communism is not really any sort of legitimate threat to this government or country." Unless you mean China's impending demolition of our economy, of course.

[unitron]

Why would China want to demolish our economy? Do they really want for all of our IOUs that they hold to become nearly worthless? Do they want us unable to buy anything else from them?

[wethepeople3884]

I don't get it - we are china's consumer base. We are like the southern rednecks to the walmart gun selection. We are basically their best costumers. Why would they want to change that relationship? And more importantly, how in the heck would china change our economic system??? I actually think the US could use more socialism in controlling uncompetitive, corporate, economic oligarchies who wield all the power of our legislative institution with their political clout and amazing ability to single-handedly fund an entire congressional election.

These lawmakers are like putty in their hands. They are their "base" as bush used to say. They are "too big to fail" so the government will never let them in fear of not getting proper funding for the following election. Some socialism or rather government interference and strict oversight over a few of the monstrosities out there (Goldman, AIG, BofA, etc.) would do this country a world of good. The Chinese economy looks pretty good right about now actually. Socialism ceased to be THE SCARY word for all the new generation, college-educated out there because we just didn't live through the red scare and dont really find socialist ideas as a threat but more of a decent idea that was twisted and distorted into a disaster. But so has capitalism. Combining the best of those two economic policies would probably be the wisest choice of all.