About Those Czars...

Anyone who watches cable news surely knows that conservatives are getting themselves all hot and bothered over the Obama administration's appointment of so-called czars. Today, the Democratic National Committee is going nuts in response. I've got more e-mails from them about this today than I care to count. This whole debate is descending into complete partisan hackery: GOP operatives are fanning ridiculous fears while Democrats are proffering inflated claims to counter them. That said, a lot of people do appear concerned by the existence of "czars," so I think the issue merits a quick discussion. Of course, the points I'm about to list come with the caveat that a lack of accountability for public officials should always be of concern in a democracy. But these czars aren't beyond the bounds of reproach, nor are they entirely apart from the democratic process—they're accountable to the White House, which of course is elected. Some of them even needed Senate confirmation. And don't forget, Congress can still impeach the president if he has done something truly bad.

With that said, on to my points:

1. There doesn't seem to be any real agreement on what constitutes a czar. Some are special assistants, others are envoys, and others still are policy advisers. The only thing they seem to have in common is a lack of congressional oversight, but that's not so different from hundreds of other administration employees. You can't call Robert Gibbs up before a congressional committee if you don't like his press briefings.

2. Obama didn't invent czars. Richard Nixon had both a drug czar and an energy czar. The Washington Post says that the range of special advisers employed by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression could be considered czars, as could Herbert Hoover when Calvin Coolidge invested him with special powers after the Mississippi River burst its banks.

3. President George W. Bush himself had many czar positions—36 of them in fact, including intelligence czars, manufacturing czars, a bioethics czar and, of course, Karl Rove, the domestic-policy czar. Some of the czars appointed by Obama fill those same positions. The DNC points out in its many, many e-mails (seriously, enough already!) that Bill O'Reilly had even called on Bush to appoint an immigration czar and a charity czar. Bush also had Dick Cheney, who, while not a czar, seemed to believe his office was a separate branch of government. Cheney and Bush also claimed unprecedented executive privilege, and their judicial appointees were eager to grant it. (Anyone recall their complete circumvention of the FISA court? Just askin'.)

4. The appointment of czars makes Obama a communist about as much as a fake Kenyan birth certificate does. Remember that whole Russian revolution? The Tsars and the commies didn't really see eye to eye on much...

5. Since when have people had so much faith in congressional oversight anyway? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for believing in robust democratic process. But approval of Congress hovers around 30 percent, significantly lower than Obama's favorability ratings (the latest Gallup poll has Obama at 51 percent). It's surprising that so many folks are eager for administration officials to be accountable to a body they don't appear to think much of.