Scrolling Headlines:

Softball sweeps Saint Joseph’s to take over first place in the Atlantic 10 -

April 24, 2017

Report: UMass men’s basketball lands Maryland transfer Jaylen Brantley -

April 24, 2017

UMass baseball takes two out of three in weekend series with La Salle -

April 24, 2017

UMass men’s lacrosse can’t keep pace with Hofstra in road loss -

April 24, 2017

Senior Columns 2016-2017 -

April 24, 2017

Q&A with UMass student app creator -

April 24, 2017

UMass women’s lacrosse squeaks past George Mason 18-17 -

April 24, 2017

Events in Turkey today echo patterns of Armenian genocide -

April 24, 2017

LGBTQIA+ Seder discusses oppressed communities gaining insight for the future -

April 24, 2017

Even crowd-pandering can’t dull the brilliance of Actress’ ‘AZD’ -

April 24, 2017

UMass Earth Day Festival focuses on local community -

April 24, 2017

Ten ways to save the environment that will not change your life -

April 24, 2017

Aakanksha Gupta reflects on her time at the Collegian and UMass -

April 24, 2017

The Collegian: A place of opportunity where I found home -

April 24, 2017

There’s no other organization on campus I’d rather be a part of -

April 24, 2017

Students and community members gather to celebrate science for Earth Day -

April 24, 2017

Quick Hits: A few standout performances highlight UMass football’s annual spring game -

April 21, 2017

Northampton cited as city choosing not to comply with ICE -

April 20, 2017

MASSPIRG hosts seminar on hunger and homelessness -

April 20, 2017

University Union hosts debate on Electoral College -

April 20, 2017

Propaganda surrounding Obama’s ‘czars’

Two weeks ago, I drove to my hometown of Chicopee to spend Friday night at the Big E with a couple of my good friends. As I approached the intersection of Route 116 and Route 202, I saw groups of people assembled along the sidewalks holding signs decrying over-the-top government spending.

My favorite sign was “Socialist Obama: Hands Off My Capitalism.” From the use of the S-word to the decrying of his “czar” advisors, it seems Obama’s opponents are always trying to invoke Soviet Russia.

A “czar” is a spin on the word “advisor,” and an extremely propagandist one at that. Woodrow Wilson first used the term after the Russian Revolution to refer to his new leading industry advisor. Since then, many presidents have followed suit. Even George W. Bush had these advisors, and some historians argue he had just as many as Obama, though not as early into his term. “Czars” don’t have any budgetary control or solid authority, and they spend the majority of their day grappling with other White House staffers. Glenn Beck, who is first and foremost an entertainer, used the term because it was once the title of the Russian monarch. Mr. Beck makes money off of inflammatory rhetoric, and he used czar because the main critique of the President’s policy is the claim that he is socialist.

Among conspiracy theorists, it is said our President is secretly moving us towards communism. He will impose a totalitarian government, which will suppress our freedoms and force us to toil mercilessly in communal fields to fill government warehouses with corn for kopeks on the rouble. Glenn Beck isn’t stupid; he’s clever, and he knows just what to say to get people talking. He’s also filthy rich.

Ironically, the office of czar is completely pre-communist. The Russian monarchy was overthrown to create a communist state because Russian peasants were fed up with Nicholas II. It has absolutely nothing to do with communism or its sister-child socialism, and is actually its antithesis. Propagandists picked the most Russian-sounding word they could find that Joe Shmoe would recognize, and they used it scare dumb Americans.

As far as the admitted communist who resigned from Obama’s administration, Van Jones was an advisor. He advised. The three branches of government make policy, and last time I checked, we had a free multi-party system and Joe McCarthy was dead and buried. Van Jones was not going to stage a coup d’état. He most likely sees a lot of inequality in today’s world (who doesn’t?), and subscribes to an economic creed that theoretically doesn’t widen the gap between rich and poor. Lock your doors and keep your children inside till 2012, because we had a socially conscious leftist in the Obama Administration.

Next, let’s discuss “spend-a-thon” Obama. This economic crisis is not our President’s fault. He inherited this mess due to decades of bad policy making and irresponsible financial management on the part of average Americans. Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard in 1971, which meant that the Federal Reserve could print money without gold to back it up. We could simply print our way out of any debt we might incur. Our budget was balanced when Clinton left office, and then, President Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan two years later. Bush also thought it was a good idea to cut taxes so that he could fund his two new endeavors overseas. Common sense says that if you are going to fund two wars, you better have the revenue to pay for them. As far as the critique of Obama’s stimulus package, injecting large amounts of capital into a stalling economy is a core Keynesian principle. The vast majority of economists adhere to it, even conservatives, and it is the basis of modern economic theory. There is a method to this stimulus “madness”.

Social Security and Medicare will run out of funds to operate by 2017, which is why I always laugh when I see the elderly holding picket signs lambasting Obama. They’re fighting to insure they have to return to work to pay for health insurance in their old age.

By 2017, healthcare costs will consume 20 percent of our GDP, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That’s roughly $2.5 trillion that would be spent every year on healthcare alone. Diabetes and heart disease cost this country millions of dollars every year, and these figures don’t necessarily include the costs of secondary illness that stem from both. If you want to know who is responsible for the conundrum of health care reform, you need only look in the mirror.

The public option of the healthcare plan President Obama put forward was meant to keep private health care companies honest. His intention was to lower health care costs through market competition, but, he had to abandon this because of the “boogie-czar” hiding under our children’s beds. A public option does not equal socialism. The government already runs Medicare and Medicaid, so this is old healthcare news.

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as “various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”. The pubic option was simply that, an option. When Obama starts confiscating your land and seizing factories, then you can tell me “I told you so”.

The problem with Americans is that they want everything for nothing. If you elect a President for two consecutive terms that thinks war funding grows on trees, and you take out mortgages on houses you can’t afford, there are going to be consequences. Obama is going to have to prescribe a strong medicine to straighten this country out. We’re not going to like the taste, and we might not agree with everything he proposes, but inaction is completely unacceptable.

Meghan Boesch is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at mboesch@student.umass.edu.

Comments
One Response to “Propaganda surrounding Obama’s ‘czars’”
  1. Alex Perry says:

    This column just can’t be serious. The title would indicate it’s an effort to disprove propaganda but all it does is create the same old liberal propaganda.

    This paragraph right here is just completely incorrect:

    “Glenn Beck, who is first and foremost an entertainer, used the term because it was once the title of the Russian monarch. Mr. Beck makes money off of inflammatory rhetoric, and he used czar because the main critique of the President’s policy is the claim that he is socialist”

    that is 100% not true. the term “czar” being used with regard to white house advisors has been used for decades:

    “The habit of using “czar” to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called “What’s With This Czar Talk?” and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are “really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems.” Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of “czar” has changed from insult to praise: “It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.””

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

    I love how you go on to make it seem like glenn beck is creating some sort of conspiracy using selective language when really its been commonly used for years, including being used by members of this administration.

    “Glenn Beck isn’t stupid; he’s clever, and he knows just what to say to get people talking. He’s also filthy rich.”

    that’s very fresh. MSNBC couldnt bash fox news hosts any better.

    So now that we can move past glenn beck, i can discuss this column’s other errors and hypocricy. how about this paragraph?

    “Our budget was balanced when Clinton left office, and then, President Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan two years later. Bush also thought it was a good idea to cut taxes so that he could fund his two new endeavors overseas. Common sense says that if you are going to fund two wars, you better have the revenue to pay for them.”

    Bush was not throwing money away he was funding wars that were directly related to fighting terrorism and were a matter of national security. But, that is not the point at all here. Its the hypocricy you’re spewing. You say you better have the revenue to pay for them? Dont you support a president who has just burried us in more debt then all the presidents before him combined? Where is his revenue to pay for that? Thats completely ridiculous you criticize Bush for something Obama is doing 10x worse. Get your story straight.

    “As far as the critique of Obama’s stimulus package, injecting large amounts of capital into a stalling economy is a core Keynesian principle. The vast majority of economists adhere to it, even conservatives, and it is the basis of modern economic theory. There is a method to this stimulus “madness”.”

    Thats just 100% incorrect. No conservatives believe government spending is a means of stimulating the economy. The reason for this is, throughout the worlds history, there is no indication that keynesian principles have ever worked in stimulating an economy. No one can site any examples because none exist. There is however precedent for real conservative principles such as cutting spending and cutting taxes being effective in stimulating. See: the Reagen era.

    “The public option of the healthcare plan President Obama put forward was meant to keep private health care companies honest. His intention was to lower health care costs through market competition,”

    There are already over 1000 insurance companies in this country. 1 more would not create competition. What we need is what McCain said during the campaign, we need to allow americans to shop across state lines for their insurance. That will create competition amongst all the companies and consumers will get the best deals. It’s very simple.

    I’m gonna finish up with arguably the most ridiculous statement in the column.

    “Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard in 1971, which meant that the Federal Reserve could print money without gold to back it up. We could simply print our way out of any debt we might incur.”

    This is just whole heartedly untrue. The country cant simply print money. If they do that, inflation occurs, and the money is worth less. The money we are spending while in debt right now is borrowed from other countries, primarily china. Abandoning the gold standard did not destroy the value of money in this country and that is because the monetary policies in this country are generally in good hands and well managed.

    I agree with you though, there is a lot of propaganda out there.

Leave A Comment