Bizzare Czars so Far

There has been ongoing criticism, particularly among mainstream conservatives, concerning the ambiguous and continual appointment of executive ‘czars’ by the Obama administration. The term itself, ‘czar’, was coined by Ronald Reagan in 1982 when referring to his predecessor Jimmy Carter’s appointments, and Reagan himself maintained loyal officials in similar positions. The main grievance with this fairly recent czar tradition is that these specifically appointed presidential advisers, some of whom are currently unabashed communists, serve entirely outside of congressional oversight and are not appointed with Senatorial approval. As it stands, the Obama administration has a record staff of thirty two czars, but has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 branch positions which do require confirmation in the Senate. Though the president can delegate authority amongst inferior officers (Article II section 2), there has been an increasing discomfort with the ever-increasing appointment of these persons outside of the traditional advice and consent process.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.