Czars in the 21st Century

My favorite bête noire of political discussion, S. L. Bradish, posted a note in which she asserted that President Obama's socialism was evident by his appointment of "czars" to oversee specified government programs and operations. The "czar" stuff has been around for a while but has become the latest reason to hate or fear this president.

Yep, the lunatic fringe of the Rabid Right has discovered a new way to disparage the president and suggest, in the words of John McCain (who surely knows better), that President Obama "has more czars than the Romanovs". Those who would use the appointment of a policy advisor to the president, a position nicknamed "czar" by the media because it fits into a headline, as an indication of communist leanings show their lack of historical knowledge. The Russian Czars were bitter haters of communism; indeed it was the communists who brought them down. But anyway . . . the use of the term "czar" as a shorthand media reference to a presidential advisor goes back a long time.

An Internet search came up with the name of Republican John Love who was "energy czar" under Richard Nixon. What? Nixon a dirty commie? Another source named the first so-called czars to have been named by Franklin Roosevelt 80 years ago, but all presidents have had formal or informal advisors.

Far be it for me to put words in the mouths of rabid folks, but I gather that the Obama-haters complain that he hired roughly 32 policy people who can be described as czars, largely because, according to the right's criteria, these White House officials were not confirmed by Congress, or because they supposedly lack formal titles, or because they answer only to the president. (Actually, most of them do have titles but ones that are long and not "punchy" enough for sound-bites or headlines. I'll offer some specifics in a bit.)

Those on the far fringe who assert there is no need for health care reform had better check their own fits of amnesia. While the criteria suggested by the Right to determine czar hood is murky and not that clear, President George W. Bush hired - among many others - a science czar, cyber-security czar, regulatory czar, weapons czar, bailout czar, bird-flu czar, AIDS czar, intelligence czar, Afghanistan czar, war czar, terrorism czar, drug czar, faith-based czar, food-safety czar, Mideast-peace czar, manufacturing czar, and Katrina-cleanup czar. I believe that the rough count was 36 or 37, not counting Karl Rove or Vice President Cheney, both of whom had czar like qualities!

How far does the craziness go? Or the forgetfulness?

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee referred to President Obama's czars "an affront to the Constitution," but, in 2003, he praised then President Bush for appointing an AIDS czar and a manufacturing czar. Robert Bennett, Republican senator from Utah, has accused Obama's czars as "undermining the Constitution," yet, a decade ago, he told CNN that President Clinton needed meet an alleged cyber-security threat by appointing what he called "a Y2K czar". The difference is that Senator Bennett is running for re-election and has hitched his wagon to that which he hopes will carry him to victory

My personal favorite czar story is that of Randall Tobias, George Bush's "abstinence czar". As is the case of most "czars", Mr. Tobias had a formal title, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, a Congressional approve agency and Administrator, but was given the shorter title by the media. One of Mr. Tobias' jobs was to promote sexual abstinence to reduce the spread of AIDS; condoms led to promiscuity and we couldn't have those foreigners exposed to them! Mr. Tobias held his position until forced to resign after evidence came up of his use of prostitutes

But, I digress. I was writing about the horror on the Right as to that socialist, fascist, sneaky, racist (but duly elected by a majority vote) man in the White House who appoints people as advisors with Russian sounding titles. Or as Ms. Bradish posted, acts like he were trying to emulate Cuba.

About those czars without real titles, it has been commonplace for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, named by all recent presidents, as the "budget czar", President Bush (43) named Jessie Roberson as "clean-up czar", Dan Bartlett, Presidential Special Counselor, as "communication czar" and the list goes on and on.

John McQuaid, winner of a Pulitzer and not an ideologue, indeed one who has suggested that the reach and scope of the Federal government has expanded too much, brought the attack mode of the GOP Right into focus. He writes.

The George W. Bush presidency brought both the Republican Party and the conservative movement low, and it's distressing to watch the GOP base get whipped into frenzy by cynical demagogues while its politicians do the only thing they know how to do -- pander to the people making the loudest, most aggrieved noises.

Demagoguery and aggrievement are nothing new in American politics. But what's strange is the scattershot nature and incoherence of the attacks on Obama. Usually, politicians -- even demagogues -- summon a sense of history, shared experience, and cultural traditions to move people. But there's little evidence of those things in most of the critiques of Obama's policies by Republican politicians or tea party activists, little evident understanding of what the president is doing or how it might be improved upon, changed, or replaced. Scare words and phrases have supplanted arguments. Those words have historical meaning. Once, history gave those words power. But now they've been shorn of all contexts. It's a communist-fascist-socialist word salad.

One of the sillier examples of this is the crusade, by Glenn Beck and others, against Obama administration "czars.". . . . "Czar" sounds scary, I guess, because it's a Russian word. Communists are taking over the government! Of course, the last real Russian Czar, Nicholas II, was executed by communists in 1917, so the historical reference isnonsensical. So is the substance of the attack. "Czar" is an informal -- and semi-ironic -- title that connotes a certain policy portfolio.

So: Obama, the president, is appointing people to government positions that have certain policy coordination responsibilities. That's what presidents do. There may be questions to be raised about their job performance or past activities, but in that respect they are no different from hundreds of other political appointees. Yet, exploiting the notion that Obama must be up to something sinister, Republicans have seized upon the czar issue. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is running for governor of Texas, attacks the "czars" in today's Washington Post as "an affront to the Constitution."

I, personally, think that Ms Hutchinson is smarter than to really believe that; the sadness is that she assumes her supporters are not very smart. The Right is afraid (?) to engage the Obama administration on substance and those who are the loudest instigators, the Rushes, Glenns and the other denizens of Fox News encourage this anti-thought approach.

Mr. McQuaid concludes:

During the 1980s and 1990s, many conservatives had credible, coherent arguments to make about government policies and the nature of government itself. I sometimes agreed, more often disagreed. But their arguments had some heft: the liberal welfare state actually did have a lot of serious problems in the overlapping realms of policy and politics. Now, if I'm looking for a meaningful critique of Obama's policies and appointments, (with some exceptions of course) I'm just not going to find it on the right. Conservatism has, effectively, gone AWOL from the policy debate -- which is a great boon to Obama, but probably not so good for the American system.

Resort to the silly misuse of the President's name (Ms Bradish refers to him as B.O. (B.S.) based on the Birthers' refuted assertion that the president had attended school or had received a scholarship under his step-father's name, Soetro; There is a comprehensive study of this issue on the Snopes website -- http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp -- and a demonstration of how the story had its start. It was an April Fools' prank, the story cites organizations that have never existed.) and what you end up doing is to trivialize valid and cogent arguments against President Obama's policies.

Referring to the President as a communist or a Nazi establishes the vacuity of the speaker's brain.

Which may be the case, but why proclaim it to the world?