Or at least that's what is constantly fed to us in civics class.
Assuming all of the above are true, recent trends and events only serve to highlight how far we've come from those cherished ideals of limited government and individual liberty that was the cornerstone and hallmark of our republic.
The latest news is that the White House’s acting “cyber czar” has just resigned, with no permanent replacement in sight.
Carol Browner is the administration's "Energy Czarina". Gil Kerlikowski is the much touted "Drug Czar". And the list doesn't stop there. We also have Homeland Security Czar (John Brennan), Economic Czar (Paul A. Volcker), Car Czar (Ron Bloom) and so on and so forth. 16 "Czars" at the last count!
Obama isn't the first President to use 'Czars'. Nixon named William Simon as his "Energy Czar". Bush appointed Tom Ridge as his "Homeland Security Czar".
What's with this sudden obsession with naming 'Czars'? I thought Art.I, Sec.9 of the US Constitution prohibited nobility in the United States?
Are we so desperate for solutions that we are willing to entrust people who are not non-elected and accountable to no-one-but-the-President with power and responsibility?
Never mind the insulting implication of an idolatrous term as 'Czar' - which implies said person is not a government servant but some kind of noble being.
The rash of 'strongmen' appointed to 'important positions' shall only serve to undermine the barely existing checks-and-balances in our government while further strengthening an already run-away and "imperial" Executive.
The fawning media coupled with the lack of concern by the public only demonstrates how far we the people have come in rejecting limited government and respect for liberty. When faced with a crisis or a problem, instead of looking towards ourselves and our community for solutions; we clamor for government intervention. We call upon 'Czars' to take care of us, 'the subjects'.
This does not bode well for the future.
Dum Spiro, Pugno!
