Imperial Russia Only Had One Czar Because It Was a Centralized Autocracy
For a couple of months now, conservatives have been launching nonsensical attacks on the Obama administration for having too many “czars” and darkly warning of incipient dictatorship. In fact, “czar” is not an official position in the government, and the president can’t do anything about the fact that people in the media may or may not refer to a given executive branch official as a “czar.” Now the nonsense really hits the big-time with a dishonest and absurd Washington Post op-ed that, sad to say, fits in the best tradition of that section of the paper. For example, Cantor writes that “Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances.”
Now, Cantor is a practical politician. Lying about his political enemies when he can get away with it is what he does. In theory, the Post has editors to prevent their pages from being used as a vehicle for such lies. In practice, the Post seems to feel that its op-ed pages should be used to mislead people. Thus, though my colleague Amanda Terkel was able to verify that many of these alleged “czars” have, in fact, been confirmed by the Senate nobody on the staff of the Post was able to do so.
Meanwhile, as a basic point of logic what’s with this complaint:
At last count, there were at least 32 active czars that we knew of, meaning the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia.
The thing about Imperial Russia is that as a centralized autocracy it only had one czar. Having multiple people in positions of authority makes a political system less, rather than more, autocratic. Consider, “under Hitler, Germany had only one Fuhrer, but in the contemporary United States there are dozens of important political leaders.” Do you find that idea alarming? Are we worse than the Nazis? Of course not.
53 Responses to “Imperial Russia Only Had One Czar Because It Was a Centralized Autocracy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Thank goodness every Congress has only one Cantor!
July 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Eric Cantor is both a dim bulb and the GOP’s brightest light. Amazingly, this is a good thing for the GOP as the WaPo will give up it’s finite space to say things which would disappear into the infinity of the world wide web. And Fred Hiatt still doesn’t see why his paper is failing.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Fisking this know-nothing is like bringing in Jonathan Papelbon to face pinch-hitter Helen Keller. I do wonder whether he sees himself as Lenin in this landscape, though.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Interesting my dad (and his political mentors, his maternal grandparents) criticized Reagan and Bush I for the same reason.
Of course, these, old fashioned conservatives find (or in the case of my late, great-grandparents, found) today’s GOP to be a bunch of reactionary nuts who are in no way actually conservative. But “we’re even worse than the Russians — they at least got rid of their Czar” argument is quite an old one on the right. It’s just that the sorts of rightists who originally made it are now either dead or Obama supporters, Reagan and his ilk having driven them from the GOP.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think the point might simply be that there were not 32 czars of Russia over the entire existence of the Russian Empire from Peter the Great to the Russian Revolution. Which is a silly and meaningless point, but as a rhetorical flourish it’s pretty harmless.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Or maybe it’s not true actually, I am stupid in Russian history, there were a whole lot of Tsars. But still, I think he’s just trying to sound important rather than making a substantive point.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
as a rhetorical flourish
Does anybody think that Cantor knows a lot about the history of Russia under the czars? Or that he can, in fact, find Russia on a map?
I want to know who is the brain behind those GOP obscure talking points; it sure can’t be any of their Congressmen or flacks always on the teevee.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Mr. Cantor is correct in some sense. In that he longs for a Czar. The GOP loves themselves a Czar… demonstrated by how eagerly Mr. Cantor and his colleagues were kissing Mr. Bush’s ass.
One Czar to rule them all, One Czar to find them,
One Czar to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
July 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I hear Eric Cantor is very intelligent.
[/village]
July 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Well, while I think it’s perfectly appropriate to saddle Cantor with the implications of this Op-Ed, since he did lend his name to it, in fact the probability that he actually wrote it is just about zero, isn’t it?
July 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
There’s no mystery here. Cantor is saying what Matt says he’s saying.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of “czars” have been labelled such by Obama. Wait. No it wouldn’t. What a stupid waste of time.
Let’s all just be thankful that this is what the conservative agenda amounts to: wasting time and column inches with pointless claptrap.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The Republican house organ Fox News recently, and famously, failed to place Egypt on the right continent – and iirc Egypt receives the second-largest amount of US foreign aid, following only Israel. So I wouldn’t count on Cantor to find Russia on a map.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The current crop of GOPers aren’t conservative. They aren’t even reactionary. They’re reflections of the country: they’re lunatic and corrupt.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Stupidest argument ever. Wing nuts and libertarians who complain about “czars” should simply be mocked mercilessly, not even granted the respect of trying to use logic. There is no historical or legal or traditonal connection whatsoever between the autocrat of all the Russias and “czars,” which is simply a stupid media driven nickname. Let’s start calling them Commissars instead just to really enrage the wing-nuts.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
One can only imagine what Matt would be writing if a Republican President appointed 32 some odd policy people with broad powers and no accountability to Congress.
I’m sure he’ll wake up after the next power transition, and be suddenly stunned to see the other party using the same tactic.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I propose that we call Boehner the House Minority Czar from now on.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
In theory, the Post has editors to prevent their pages from being used as a vehicle for such lies. In practice, the Post seems to feel that its op-ed pages should be used to mislead people.
Interestingly, in today’s print edition of the WaPo Op-Ed, there is a correction to yesterday’s Harold Meyerson column:
So I guess that the Post succumbed to the pressure of those who ask that they issue corrections for tripe written by the likes of Will, Feldstein, and Cantor — by correcting something in Meyerson’s column that did not change the force of his underlying argument.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The moron is leaving out the whole Rurik dynasty. There were well over 32 czars even if you leave out the czarinas and the false Dmitri.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
See! Liberal Fascists want us be Führers!
July 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
er um to be. I fail at parody.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Shorter Eric Cantor: Appointing people to positions of responsibility is a terrible thing.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I don’t know if Matt would say it, but I’d say the president can hire a Mormon Tabernacle choir of policy advisors to chant policy at him if he wants (and can get the budget for) them. One thing everyone in Washington knows is that “czar” means “no power but his reputation”.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Eric Cantor has to be the straight-out stupidest person in the Senate, bar-none. Every op-ed of his that I’ve read uses kindegarden logic as this one. Would a “central autocracy” really have 32 separate people calling the shots?
Articles like these make me laugh and rage at the same time. I can’t believe people like this get into the Senate. An idiot at this level of government is more dangerous than someone who is power-hungry or corrupt.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
One can only imagine what James Robertson would comment if it were true that any President appointed 32 or so policy people with broad powers and no accountability to Congress. Because it isn’t true, which was rather Matt’s point.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Leaving aside the stiff competition for “stupidest person in the Senate” (Bunning, for example), Cantor is not eligible:
July 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Actually, the Nazi regime constantly used the term Fuhrer for all sorts of positions (hundreds of thousands or more of them eventually) – true, modified it into such formulations as “Boy Scout Troop Leader”, while “der Fuhrer” was generally reserved for Hitler alone.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Can I get the US vs Imperial Russia czar count comparison in chart form?
July 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
It’s been a long time since I took German, but my recollections are (1) that “Fuhrer” literally translates to “Leader” and (2) that prior to its use by Hitler it was commonly used in many contexts, including troop leaders in the equivalent of the Boy Scouts. I have no idea whether the Nazis continued those other uses, or indeed added more, but I believe at least some of those uses were grandfathered.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
There were 20 Romanovs, and another 6 from various dynasties starting from Ivan the Terrible, who was the first “Tsar and Autocrat of All the Russias.” Only two Rurik’s were Tsars, the rest were Grand Princes of Kievan Rus’ and the Moscow Principality. Just sayin’
July 30th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
the head honcho, the big cheese, numero uno…
July 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Also I’m including Tsarinas… It’s remarkable to note that the Russian Empire had four more female Heads of State than the US has had.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Even as we mock Cantor, someone else will be wondering about the constitutionality of the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs or the War on Terror.
Bunning, for example
Shy and now retiring. Alas.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The sad thing is that this man belongs to the group that has a good track record of winning media message wars.
We have to fight back with equally ridiculous and baseless talking points. Let’s try this Bill O’Reilly-esque one:
“We have more Czars than Imperial Russia because we have more people than Imperial Russia.”
Or this nuanced idea:
“Czars keep America safer, stronger, and happier”
Or how’ bout this for a bumper sticker:
“Support our Czars!” (maybe with like an Eagle eating a Russian flag)
July 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Warren Terra @ 25, good catch.
For some reason I’ve always thought he was a Senator. Since Cantor is in the house he’ll have stiff competition from Mike Pence (R-Ind) for stupidest Representative.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
An op-ed is a guest viewpoint by definition. That the Post is printing it does not represent an endorsement. If the House Minority Whip wants to put his name on an item written by the gentleman’s C student Late Night Shots frat rats of whom his staff is no doubt composed, and too dumb to be taken seriously by anyone else, I’m not sure in whose interest it is (except the GOP’s) for the Post to kill it.
The abominations that appear as editorials, or columns by Post writers, are another matter entirely of course.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Accountability aside, does it say anything about how broken the organization of the executive branch must be if we have to invent all of these cross-departmental officers in order to make sure there’s appropriate coordination and that issues don’t get lost in the shuffle?
July 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Leaving aside the stiff competition for “stupidest person in the Senate” (Bunning, for example Jim Bunning is the craziest person in the Senate, not the stupidest. The stupidest person in the Senate is Grassley, wait, no, Robertson, no, DeMint, no, Kyle, jeez, who is the stupidest person in the Senate? Anyway, it isn’t Cantor.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Well, I hate to be wrong, but I was mostly being facetious.
On the other hand, some of the Ruriks were princes of two Rus at the same time. Much in the same way that one knee equals two feet in football, I think one czar should equal two princes.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Are we worse than the Nazis? Of course not.
That’s where you and the Republican Party would differ.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
[...] Little Logic Goes A Long Way 30 07 2009 Matt Yglesias is taking issue with the complaints over the numerous czars in the Obama administration (for the record, I rather dislike that spelling and prefer “tsar,” it’s much [...]
July 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Speaking of Czars, I seem to recall there was a push recnetly among some Russian bishops to bring back the monarchy, with Vladimir Putin as the new Czar. Did anyone else hear anything about that?
July 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Re: The moron is leaving out the whole Rurik dynasty.
The first Russian czar was Vasily III in the mid 1400s. The title actually means “Caesar” and was traditionally borne by rulers who had some relationship to the Byzantine Emperor. Several Bulgarian kings had earlier in the Middle Ages made use of it. Vasily adopted it by dint of his marriage to a Byzantine princess after Byzantium itself fell to the Turks. Previously he was just a Grand Duke.
Re: Also I’m including Tsarinas… It’s remarkable to note that the Russian Empire had four more female Heads of State than the US has had.
If we ran things the way the Romanovs did, Hillary Clinton would have taken over for Bill after she bumped him off for diddling Monica.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
There have always been pushes to bring back the czars, the emperor of japan, etc. Seems deposed nobility still has a lot of time on its hands.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“I have no idea whether the Nazis continued those other uses, or indeed added more, but I believe at least some of those uses were grandfathered.”
The Nazis adopted “leader” from Mussolini’s fascism (Mussolini’s nickname of il Duce is an analogue of der Fuhrer) – it was a terminology common to worldwide fascism (Romanian and Spanish fascism both also used analogues of il Duce, for instance). The Nazis preferentially used “fuhrer” or “leiter” – most SS ranks were some modification of fuhrer instead of traditional military ranks, Hitler retained his title of “der Fuhrer” even when he could have called himself Chancellor, the civilian administration was through the regional Gauleiter (leader of a Gau) and so on.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Re: There have always been pushes to bring back the czars, the emperor of japan, etc.
Last I checked there’s still an emperor sitting on the Chrysanthemum Throne in Tokyo. he has only a ceremonial role, true, but then that was often the case in Japan’s history.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I have to admire Eric Cantor’s devotion to demolishing one of the most common stereotypes about Jewish people.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Even as we mock Cantor, someone else will be wondering about the constitutionality of the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs or the War on Terror.
I will gladly be that guy. The War on Drugs has egregiously overstepped the 4th Amendment, and the GWOT is a clear abrogation of Congress’ responsibilities to declare war, to say nothing of the human rights abuses…
July 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Re: Seems deposed nobility still has a lot of time on its hands.
The efforts I heard about weren’t about bringing back the Romanovs, they involved having Putin found a new dynasty, and they were waged by certain of the Russian clergy, not by Putin himself. I dont remember where I heard the reference though.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:22 am
The czar meme made me laugh when I heard it. It’s sad to hear it has become so prevalent. It’s really a linguistic absurdity, a meaningless and insensible statement, to say some collective has 32 czars. Of course this doesn’t obviate the concern that too much power is in two few hands, but I want no power at all in the hands of people who abuse language like Cantor. Reality out-paces satire nowadays.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:02 am
I’m beginning to think these repeated decisions by the Washington Post are economic. The Newspaper industry is declining and in the long term they only see a handful of publications besides it & The New York Times still in business. Believing the Times to be more liberal friendly, the Post seems to be angling itself to be the premiere paper of note that lets republicans & conservatives say whatever they want, whenever they want without fact checking or consequences.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:26 am
The quote is talking about Imperial Russia, which means anyone before Peter the Great doesn’t count. From Peter the Great until 1917, there were about 15 tsars and tsarinas (maybe 10 who spent any significant amount of time on the throne). If you count all tsars starting with Ivan IV, including the whole Time of Troubles clusterf&ck, which really boosts the count, you get up to about 25. Ivan IV was really the first Russian tsar – they were officially called Grand Princes before then, though a few used the term tsar to refer to themselves.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am
No czars in Russia. Lots of tsars, however.
The letter makes a -ts sound!
Also, this is probably the stupidest of their arguments. “There are too many people in the executive branch, and they’re getting too much done!”
August 5th, 2009 at 9:57 am
These czars are being used to bypass Congress. It is unconstitutional, and several of these czars have criminal records and wacky, outlandish beliefs, including the science czar.