A czar is an interesting choice for a high-ranking government title in a democratic society much less an American one considering the word has a nice un-democratic Russian history.
Czar’s hark back to a time of absolute power and control, unquestioned authority over the masses and a lack of accountability to anyone but themselves. I guess czar sounds a bit sexier than “director” and catches Capitol Hill’s attention in a manner that “special appointee” just couldn’t quite do. The media created title quite accurately sums up what these special appointees have the authority to do.
Presidentially appointed czars aren’t exactly a new thing. Nixon had his energy czar, Reagan had a drug czar, Clinton added an AIDS czar and George W. Bush rounded out the czar race with twelve, including a czar to keep a check on the bird flu.
Obama has set a new record though with 32 active czars, a number that some have quipped is more than Russia had in its entire history.
The problems with these appointments are two fold — first they’re accountable only to the president. Is a six page questionnaire really enough to fully vet these people?
Some of these positions carry weight beyond mere symbolic policy suggestions. For instance, the pay czar will be in charge of reviewing bonus packages for top executives at companies and rejecting or approving the pay. What qualification does that position require, and how can we trust an unaccountable appointee with its execution? Congress isn’t even there to pick apart the candidates past and at least provide a critical look of his or her qualifications.
What happens when its discovered that an appointee is a member of fringe organizations, or has a checkered past? As much as I’d like to have faith in the executive branch to actually follow through on these background checks the Obama administration recently admitted that one of its more controversial appointees did not complete any sort of disclosure form or questionnaire before he accepted his position and then promptly resigned after a media outrage over his past associations.
Accountability is key for any government official.
Secondly, the czar could be nothing more than a duplicated position. Why do we need an energy czar and a secretary of energy? What need is there for a “Mideast policy czar” alongside a “Mideast peace czar”?
Unconfirmed and duplicated positions are a dangerous step toward a less accountable and more powerful executive branch. President Obama promised on the campaign trail to make the federal government more transparent. People in his own party are calling for more transparency with his new appointments as he risks keeping the public in the dark about the direction that his executive branch is taking by creating new positions with vague powers and newly created authority.
This raises a question that Congress must address immediately and clarify before it snowballs executive power overtime much like Presidential signing statements have. Congress needs to determine what authority an unconfirmed appointee may have and where the line is to be drawn in regards to power and administrative authority. Until then, we risk dismantling our cherished democratic checks and balances with a group of appointees that may have been proverbially named after Russian monarchs.
