Right’s infatuation with czars is distraction from real issues 

 ‘No more czars!” is the new tea party rallying cry, as conservatives across the country fear that President Barack Obama has unleashed a legion of unaccountable bureaucratic overlords on the body politic.

Having helped oust Van Jones, Obama’s “Green Jobs” czar, Fox News’ Sean Hannity swears that he won’t rest until he’s gotten “rid of every other one.” But if he succeeds, will the country be appreciably freer, or the government noticeably smaller?

No, it won’t, because the conservatives’ current bout of czar mania elevates symbolism over substance. All the focus on a scary moniker for certain executive officials misses the real problem: Unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch. Whether those illegitimate powers are exercised by unconfirmed presidential advisors or the president himself is quite beside the point.

Rep. Mike Pence, R–Ind., notes that you won’t find the word “czar” in the Constitution; but you won’t find it in federal law either. That’s because “czar” is a media-coined, catch-all term for presidential assistants tasked with coordinating policy on issues that cut across departmental lines.

Officials dubbed “czars” range from the truly powerful, such as Nixon’s national security advisor Henry Kissinger, to the ineffectual, such as cybersecurity czar Melissa Hathaway, who quit last month because she lacked real authority.

Often, czars are mere figureheads, appointed to signal concern over the latest hot-button issue. As one presidential scholar puts it, “when in doubt, create a czar.”

True, it’s problematic that some of these appointees aren’t vetted by the Senate, and that presidents claim czars don’t have to answer to Congress — as when the Bush administration asserted in 2002 that executive privilege shielded then-homeland security czar Tom Ridge from testifying on the Hill.

But as the Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel has pointed out, many of the “czars” who appear on the conservative target list already have to be confirmed by the Senate. Others don’t, but when Obama is determined on taking over the health care sector — one-sixth of the U.S. economy — it’s bizarre to agonize over the allegedly unchecked power exercised by the likes of the AIDS and urban affairs czars.

Similarly, while it’s great to see a 9/11 “Truther” like Van Jones denied a federal salary, few of those cheering Jones’ defenestration can coherently explain what the Green Jobs czar actually does, or the threat he was supposed to represent.

What, was Jones going to give 9/11 Truthers and black nationalists jobs weatherizing homes? Will we stop wasting money on such projects now that he’s gone?

There’s plenty Congress can and should do to enhance oversight over executive branch officials. Yale Law’s Bruce Ackerman argues that “we need to seriously consider requiring Senate approval of senior White House staff positions.”

But as long as Congress continues to write blank checks to the executive branch, it’s the height of hypocrisy for its members to complain about that branch’s unchecked power. 
 
Examiner columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

About The Author

Gene Healy

Pin It
Favorite

Speaking of...

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation