Czar Wars: Can the Rebels Fight Back?
(And don't miss Glenn Reynolds' look at "Obama's House of Czars" at PJTV.)
In recent years our nation has been beset by a proliferation of political “czars.” Pay czars determine compensation. Auto czars hire and fire CEOs. Last year the Van Jones fiasco captured headlines. There’s even been talk of a health insurance czar. Yet while each of the individual news items received appropriate attention from better commentators, the phenomenon as a whole has not. Looked at from a wider perspective, there’s something troubling about Americans’ new willingness to accept and submit to authority. If we’re to turn the country around, this is an issue we must understand and confront.
The term “czar” was first used pejoratively in the 19th century, but the actual position only entered American politics during FDR’s presidency. Using the Great Depression and World War II as justification, and as part of his massive New Deal, FDR appointed 12 czars. Yet despite his personal popularity, the nation wasn’t ready for what czars represent, so after FDR’s death and the end of WWII, subsequent administrations had relatively few czars. Bill Clinton’s presidency saw their first revival when he appointed seven czars. It became a boom under Bush (35) and currently Obama has 38 sitting in the czarport.
A first indication that something’s amiss with the whole concept of czars is its deliberate fuzziness. There’s no clear definition of czars, neither legally nor functionally. No one can say what they are, nor what they do; to the point that the numbers given above are merely “consensus” estimates. When government embraces this type of ambiguity — and citizens accept it — it’s a sign of growing authoritarianism. It signals that citizens don’t deem it necessary to understand and judge government power; they’ll uncritically swallow any proposal or dictate.
This observation notwithstanding, let’s consider proponents’ arguments in defense of czars. They begin by protesting that any concern is overwrought, since czars typically have little direct executive authority and minimal budgets. The unilateral and unchallengeable powers exercised by the pay and car czars are enough to dispel this particular line of defense.
But, proponents continue, czars are necessary “coordinators, facilitators, catalysts” (as former OMB functionary Franklin Reeder puts it). In other words, given the already massive machinery of government — its plethora of administrations, agencies, boards, bureaus, committees, commissions, departments, etc., etc. — another level of government is needed to “catalyze” their effectiveness.
Shouldn’t this very argument give its proponents pause? On their logic, the bigger the government, the more new czars and facilitators it needs — precisely because it’s already too big and unwieldy. (This is by no means hypothetical: Clinton saw the need to appoint a czar czar!)
No principle limits such a government. It grows continuously, in whatever direction the current president deems “important.” Clinton appointed e-commerce and health care czars; Bush named abstinence, faith-based, and science czars; Obama added green-jobs, global warming, and performance czars. Earlier czar offices are often held over, further embedding government sprawl.
The flip side of this government growth is the shrinking of the domains in which private citizens can make their own decisions and pursue their own values. The individual’s thoughts are marginalized — primacy is given to whatever the president and his cronies happen to think. Science czars push science in directions they prefer, regulatory czars restrict affairs they deem objectionable, etc. Substituting the government’s judgment for that of private individuals is the essence of authoritarianism.
The lesson the American people need from the Czar era is:
The Czar ruled by the rule of law; only he defined a set of laws that no one could abide by so “they” could legally jail who ever they wanted! Is:
1) the USA there
2) headed there or
3) how stupid
Presidents use the czar system to circumvent the normal political process and bypass the existing bureaucratic impasse. The existing federal bureaucracies are notoriously unresponsive to the results of elections and inbedded liberals in those bureaucracies can sabatoge elected administrative policy. Republicans usually use the czar system to get around these liberal civil servants who refuse to serve the people. Democrats use the czar system to bypass Congressional oversight and other political controls over policy.
How should the people respond to the czars?
The Tea Party protestors and others already voice their opposition to the system. November will be the first chance for a widespread vote on the admninistration and its policies. The only other recourse is to pressure members of Congress to legislatively intervene against the system or eliminate funding but, since both parties use the system, what are the chances. Perhaps the conservative rebels could press for a plank in the Republican platform. I am open to suggestions.
If I was a CEO, I would tell the Pay Czar where to put his executive ruling – as I would Waxman in Congress.
Another great essay by Amit Ghate! He identifies two disturbing trends that every American should be alarmed by: (1) The government is overstepping its proper bounds and (2) it’s doing so with arbitrary non-objective regulations. Both are dangers to the American principle of rule of law (rather than rule by men). If we wish to take back our country, we need to identify and oppose the basic premises driving our opponents. Ghate does a nice job of both!
Amit Ghate’s excellent op-ed piece draws attention to what should be an outrage: The continuing growth of government interference in our lives in the form of powerful bureaucratic appointees. But why isn’t there more outrage? Could it be that the American people have been so brainwashed by our inadequate education that unlike the intellectual ancestors they are perfectly content to submit to such authority? I hope not and the Tea Party movement is a sign that some of the original spirit and ideas that motivated the Founders of this great nation remains. What is required to fight this trend is clear, explicit, principled identification of the proper principles of a free society (for details see http://principlesofafreesociety.com/ ). That would strongly motivate people to oppose such absurdities as “American Czars” as well as all the rest of the unjustified government intrusion into our lives.
Does a czar have any power and authority over anything? If so, why? Is it not power by fiat? There is nothing in the constitution, nor any rule of law that gives these czars any authority to command anyone to do anything. If people and organizations pay attention to these czars it is because they have become sheep.
What am I missing?
This is an insightful and witty analysis and I’m sharing it on Facebook.
Amit Ghate writes about “czars” in US government:
“When government embraces this type of ambiguity — and citizens accept it — it’s a sign of growing authoritarianism. It signals that citizens don’t deem it necessary to understand and judge government power; they’ll uncritically swallow any proposal or dictate.”
This explains a main catalyst for the rise of the Tea Party movement. For many decades now, Americans have been willing to accepting this growing authoritarianism, but the best among them are starting to its consequences: the state’s unchecked authority of over their lives.
Thank you, Amit Ghate, for writing this piece that I expect will wake up more Americans to another area that is contributing to the growing authoritarianism in our government.
An interesting article. Thank you, Mr. Ghate. I agree that Americans are increasingly willing to accept authority figures. To reject authoritarianism, one must know that self-interest is morally right. If you do not accept that, you will not accept individual rights as the all-important principle that must be asserted and restored. For over a century Americans have been “softened” up to accept totalitarianism by a constant scream that they must sacrifice the self. Give up your work, your values, your thought and desires to the group. Such a barrage can wear you down if you do not have the correct antidote to self-sacrifice. When one accepts authority in place of one’s rights, one is saying that choice is too much of an effort. This is the mentality of those who were subjected to Soviet Communism. Even when offered freedom, they returned instead to duty and obedience to the state, displaying the death of the self. This is what authoritarians are after. This is what the Leftists are after. In the words of one of Ayn Rand’s characters in the novel Atlas Shrugged: “They do not want to live. They want you to die.”
The Congress should be made to work from home or start meeting at revolving sites outside of Washington. Maybe then they would start considering their constituents over the government. It would be a lot easier cutting useless departments.They should also be forbidden from taking any campaign money out of their district. It’s time to put congress on a leash and the feds on a chain.
The problem is more one of centralization’s blind spot. Centralization works fine in a homogenized setting, where everyone is basically the same and has the same wants and needs. That is why centralized socialism could work in a few homogeneous countries (and is breaking down now that they are losing their homogeneity). Centralization fails when it is applied to a heterogeneous system where the wants and needs of people are varied and dissimilar. It is also why centralized socialism can not be successful in a pluralistic country like the US.
This doesn’t just apply to government, it applies to other systems.
- centralization works fine for a company which has 40 cardboard-box making plants scattered throughout the US. They all need basically the same raw materials, use similar machines and are marketing to the same type of customers
- centralization fails for a company which has 3 diverse plants making automobiles, ballpoint pens and plumbing fixtures. They all use different materials, they market to different groups, they use different machinery and the manufacturing processes are not at all similar.
The levers that the Czars are pushing are not connected to anything – this makes them an expensive waste of space and effort. Their powers are advisory, but cabinet level posts command the management bureaucracy. Czars connect to the President only. Lower level bureaucrats can sucessfully evade most of the czar’s requirements. If the presiding Cabinet officer does not support the czar, no information will flow. I think of them as a way for a president to award a lot of money to his friends.
You might mention that most of Bush’s appointees went through the Senate; most of Obama’s have not.
“When government embraces this type of ambiguity — and citizens accept it — it’s a sign of growing authoritarianism. It signals that citizens don’t deem it necessary to understand and judge government power; they’ll uncritically swallow any proposal or dictate.”
Bingo.
The present left-right divide in America often seems to be less a discussion about freedom and liberty, and more of a discussion about which master(s) are allowed to place the chains on our legs and the collars around our necks.
Amit, I totally agree with the gist of the column, but, dude, you’ve gotta know some history so you don’t put mistakes in the second paragraph.
Czar means king, like Caesar or Koenig (can’t you tell that the 2 words “Czar” and “Caesar” are related, as are “King” and “Koenig”?) Czar was spelled differently in Russian of course (I think “Tsar”, but I’m no Ruskie). Czars were the kings in Russia before the Communists took over. There was, in fact, a movie made about the fall of the last Czar, called “Nicolas and Alexandria” (Lots of action, as I recall). Czar was in no way a pejorative term as you say.
It’s just a small mistake, but the initial showing of your lack of historical knowledge makes people think you are stupid, and that may stop them from continuing to read the column. I know you are not stupid, as I read that rest of the column and agree with it wholeheartedly, although it has all been said before. It may be constitutional to have a guy called a “czar” as an advisor, but that’s about all.
Hi, Dave.
I think you’ve misunderstood Amit’s second paragraph. He’s not saying that the term “Czar” was first used in the 19th century. He’s saying that the first time it was used in a pejoritive way was in the 19th century.
OK, BAHMainakis, I guess it makes sense now.
Thanks for the reply.
A great essay–of a kind which is all-too-rare in this day and age: it is genuinely pro-liberty.
Amit Ghate focuses on an important phenomenon: our acceptance, or acquiescence, with so many czars (I had NO idea Bush had only 3 less than Obama) shows Americans are becoming more “comfortable” with authoritarianism. But how does one oppose the czars? Is there away to sue the President for being promiscuous with presidential power, or is this something a Congressman or Senator must object to? What would be the mechanism to reverse it? It’s frightening how much power these unelected, appointed positions can wield.
Nice article,
Great job pointing out that this is a bipartisan problem…both parties are of equal blame. I hope this topic doesn’t get forgotten in the news. It is nice to see it getting some real investigative attention.
Complacency toward increasing government size and power is fueled in large part by people’s sense of a need for something to counterbalance the power of big business. Unfortunately, what many fail to realize is that the illegitimate power of large business is due to gaming the government. This is currently made possible by our mixed economy. A government of limited scope and power, one that is trimmed back to the protection of individual rights and equality before the law, would provide a level legal playing field–also known as the free market.
The existence of czars is a symptom of large government, the growth of which comes from looking to government to solve all our problems: housing, health care, student loans, and on and on.
Mr. Ghate correctly points out that organization and planning in our lives and our society is necessary—but central planning is accompanied by greater and greater authoritarianism and abridgment of our liberties. The alternative is a government which protects its citizens from fraud and the initiation of force, thus freeing them to live by their own plans and interact voluntarily.
I do not accept these czars,they need to be removed,they are as unconstitutional,as obama,his policies,the healthcare bill,anything he has done from election til he is removed is null and void.
Ohio Congressional Candidate Paul Schiffer has already written legislation to OUTLAW the practice of political “Czars” in the White House. His legislation would NOT affect the NAME used for any White House or other official. His legislation would allow Presidents to have any advisors they wish.
However, his legislation would CLARIFY that NO White House personnel has power to COMMAND any part or anyone anywhere in the government or in the private sector, and that no government official or personnel may suffer any consequences for disregarding orders from any White House official other than the President himself.
Only the President himself can wield the power of President in his own name.
The Legislation makes exceptions for any chain of command officially set up by Congress adn signed into law, and obviously allows White House supervisors to supervise their own employees inside the White House staff.
SEE:
http://www.electpaulschiffer.com/legislation.html
PROHIBITING “CZARS” Paul Schiffer will file his “PROHIBITION OF UNELECTED CZARS ACT OF 2011 his first week in Congress.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL:
a) PROHIBIT any official or employee of the “Executive Office of the President” (the White House staff) — other than the President himself — from giving orders or directives to any government official or employee outside the White House.
b) PROHIBIT any Federal funds from being spent (including as salary) for any “Czar.”
To download the Bill, “RIGHT CLICK” HERE (Click the RIGHT hand button on your mouse), then select “Save Target As”
http://www.electpaulschiffer.com/NoCzar.pdf
TO FIONA and others:
The concern about czars is not merely the situation today, but the danger that tolerating the practice will allow it to GROW over time.
So you say that the czars are levers that don’t connect to anything, that is that czars have no power. Actually, the whole POINT of most czars is that they can bully and intimidate government agencies and knock heads to do what they want simply because they are in the White House.
So the fear is that in a moment of cricis, especially, czars would become an alternate set of power centers that would seize control and act like they’re in charge, a la Alexander Haig saying “I’m in charge here” when Ronald Reagan was shot and in the hospital.
“Government’s proper role is not as an authority which sets, replaces, or invalidates its citizens’ judgments and values. On the contrary, government exists solely to protect each individual’s freedom to choose and pursue values. That’s the fundamental — and irreconcilable — difference between a country of czars and a country of rights.”
Thank-you, thank-you Mr. Ghate! Beautifully put.
Mr. Ghate hits another home run. Great job!