According to some estimates, there are currently 32 appointed Czars of various sectors within the Obama Administration. So just what the heck does that mean? Who are these people, and should we be concerned about their accountability?
A What-a-czar-us?
Almost every major blog has cited ad nauseum the Wikipedia listing for Czar (actually Tsar). The only part of this article that is relevant to the discussion is the very last section entitled "Metaphorical Uses." The term "czar" is noted as first popping into American politics in reference to the 17th President Andrew Johnson.
Semantically, Czar is really just a informal term used to describe high-level officials. "Czar" seems to have been first popularly used in a Time Magazine article in December 1973, referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration. The term "Czar" was affirmed in 1982 by current Vice President Joe Biden when referring to the congressional establishment of a "drug czar."
It is important to remember that the term "czar" is merely an informal term used by the media, and propagated by members of the government. (An interesting letter from the United States Government Accountability Office to the House of Representatives that discusses whether the term 'czar' is a form of illegal self-aggrandization can be found here.) It is NOT an official title, but an abridged version of titles like the Head of White House Office of Nation Drug Control Policy. (By this logic, Michael Steel could be thought of as the Republican Czar.)
I have to point out that the conservative criticism of Obama's czars is about eight years too late- former President Bush had the second largest number of Czar appointments in presidential history.
Here's just a few of our current "czars":
- Energy czar Carol Browner
- Urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
- Infotech czar Vivek Kundra
- Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske
- Terrorism czar John Brennan
- Stimulus accountability czar Earl Devaney
- Health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
- Intelligence czar Dennis Blai
- Border czar Alan Bersin
CZARing Above Accountability?
It's important to note that many of these appointments must be approved by Congress (eight in total), and some are even mandated by Congress (including the Drug Czar and Energy Czar).
The debate of the use of "czars" goes back to the Andrew Jackson presidency when he was accused of running a "kitchen cabinet" rather then a constitutional cabinet. The concern is that these appointed individuals could potentially have access to the White House and it's powers without any official oversight. It runs the risk of giving the Executive Branch a significant amount of power to push forward an agenda without any opposition or accountability.
Yet, very few of these individuals actually report directly to the President- most actually have to report to their respective Cabinet Chiefs.
The "czar" position is really just the point man- someone the President can essentially dump all responsibility on to achieve a certain goal- be it boarder security, TARP accountability, or Congressional oversight. It's a lot easier to get things done when one person has one major goal then to expect your Cabinet members to juggle a number of crucial tasks at once.
Why not have them all approved by Congress?
I think the answer to this is simple- have you seen how long it takes to get something or someone through Congress? Every appointment, regardless of left or right, ends up being heavily politicized. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Administrations vetting process, citing that getting positions in the government filled is a virtual "nightmare." People have even declined jobs within the government simply because they choose not to deal with the process being approved. With Obama's agenda attempting to attack a number of different problems- all of which need immediate attention- perhaps he feels we can't afford to allow these issues to get bogged down by a bunch of beurocratic red tape. Moreover, I think one has to ask- does Congressional approval really guarantee any sense of legitimacy?
Czar-ry, No Cigar
In the end, the debate over "czars" is one played out in the media by those looking to make something of nothing. It's a scary name that incites feelings of dictatorship and facism, and generally when political debates start to become emotional, it's time to back up and reevaluate.
So the President appointed people tasked with taking on specific issues. Isn't that his job?
For More:
Think Progress
Politico
Open Salon (read the comments for a well rounded debate)