Background of the term Czar in American politics
Posted by Al @ 1:58 pmJun 28
The current use of the term czar in American politics comes from the Obama administration’s use of quasi-cabinet posts to help push through his handler’s socialistic agenda. Unfortunately, these are executive-oriented positions that operate without Congressional confirmation and oversight. You and I do not have any say in this power grab and an obvious execution of a socialist agenda. The background of this term in America is very interesting.
In the 1830′s, during Andrew Jackson presidency, there was a concern over banking power held by the Second United States National Bank and how those powers affected state’s rights and the fact that the U.S. currency was not backed by some commodity, like silver, gold, etc.. Jackson sought to eliminate this banking system and waged war against the bank and the bank president Nicholas Biddle. This became know as the Bank War of 1832-36.
During this engagement by Jackson, he found an ally in Washington Globe’s editor, Frank Blair. Blair labeled Nicholas Biddle ” Czar Nicholas”, as a reference to the repressive communist regime of Russia, headed by Nicholas I. The term thereafter became popular as a label given to anyone with a tyrannical mind-set.
The term was used in American government occasionally afterward in U.S. Presidential administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. Now the U.S. Government has more czars than communist Russia ever had. I am amazed that some people in Obama’s administration think the word czar carries some positive connotation. I think these brazen and embolden folks know the connotation and are just openly shoving socialism down America’s throat.
However, the United States is currently heading down the road of full-blown socialism and the current Executive administration has found a way to accelerate their agenda by creating these new positions, held accountable only to Obama, while usurping any oversight by the U.S. Congress and the American citizens.
The term Czar in American politics was a machination of the U.S. media and, at the time of Andrew Jackson presidency, the term was used appropriately to compare the power of the U.S. National Bank to Czar Nicholas I of Russia. It was a term that had an evil connotation. Now the Obama administration seems to be shying away from the term Czar, but it seems quite appropriate to continue the use of word to represent the mind-set of this oppressive regime. Therefore, the electorate of the United States is now ruled by a “House of Czars”.
Czars were not communist, they were overthrown by the communists. However, they were dictators and yes it is shocking that politicians think this country is ripe for such a thing.
Keep on spinning you crazy diamond. Your equivocation and loaded language skills are astounding. Just because some people relates the term “czar” (Slavic in nature and derived from the Latin “Caesar“ used to generically signify a ruler), with Russia, a country which was for the better part of the 20th century under communist rule doesn’t make the term in and of it self reflective of that. As Brian stated the Czars (Nicholas II in particular) who represented Imperial Russia and the monarchy were violently over thrown by the communists.
Double check your history. Scratch that- go check it for the first time, then recheck it just to be sure you’ve got it. This “research” has been maimed and twisted all for the sake of pushing your weak argument. It doesn’t illuminate any one about anything. You could have actually had a real case here, and almost hit it towards the end, but tacking on all the communist and socialist mud slinging garbage makes it cheap and forced. The sloppy means to an end.
The real issue of concern here is how our system of checks and balances is in jeopardy of being thrown off (or already has been) by the excess powers afforded to the executive branch of which these czars are members. Looks like if I really want to educate myself about this subject I’ll have to go some place relevant. This article insult to anyone with critical thinking abilities greater than that of a four year old. I will not be reading this blog in the future, which I’m sure you are either glad or entirely ambivalent about. heh
Perhaps if your grammar and communication skills were actually better than a fourth grader, you might have some credibility with your argument.
That is a very concerning issue but it doesn’t happen to be the topic of this post. The editor was clearly exploring the origins of the term “czar”, not actually commenting on the pitfalls of using czars, as you described above. That topic of discussion is covered in other web log articles on The Liberty Journal.
If you really want to be educated on the use of czars in the U.S. government, follow the category House of Czars here on The Liberty Journal. We will be updating that category as our research dictates.
If you have anything beneficial to contribute in that regard, please feel free to do so. Simply attacking the editor doesn’t contribute to the discussion.
The title of the post is self explanatory. This was not a lesson in Russian history. Yes, I was corrected by Brian regarding the czars being overthrown by the communists. It would have probably been more appropriate for me to associate czars with dictators.
Cat states:
No, the issue here is the subject of the post, which is how the term czar originated in American politics. Yes, my facts regarding this are correct. I do not disagree with the fact that these appointments (be it czars, commissars, directors, etc..) upset the balance of power in the Federal government and circumvents the system of checks and balance set forth by our Founding Fathers. If that had been the point of my article, I would have titled it “Obama’s Appointment of Czars Circumvents The U.S. Federal Government System of Checks and Balance”.
This is a blog post and it incorporates facts of the matter with my opinion. I didn’t post it to please anyone in particular. In fact, dissenting opinions are welcome. There was some consideration to not approve your post seeing that it borders a personal attack, but we do not condone censorship, so all opinions are welcome. If I do not like it, then I do not have to read it or take it personally.
Cat stated:
Unless you are sympathetic or supportive of the communist and socialist cause, I do not understand your objections. I could have made this a very dry blog post, with no opinion. However, without it, I would not have had the pleasure to read your objections to my blog post. A well thought out and civil reply would have gained you much more meritorious credibility.
Cat states:
Again, even though you are bordering on a personal attack, I sense some ulterior motive. Actually, I’m disappointed you will not be back and engage in some form of civil discussion. You are welcome back anytime. Even in the case of hit and run attacks, I still like to see varying opinions as yours. Thanks for posting.
It didn’t come from Obama’s use of quasi-cabinet posts. I was looking for the American origin …think it started during the Reagan administraion …I think. And now tis more commonly used in a negative context. But once again when or whom started using it in the U.S.
Maybe tthe Nixon era.