By Frank Schell on 11.10.09 @ 6:07AM
There are so many -- yet not enough -- of them.
All along the Potomac, we now observe an array of
potentates not seen since the days of imperial Europe. Were they
to stand side by side, they would equal the width of a U.S. Navy
destroyer. These government chieftains, now loosely known as
czars, are so numerous as to almost constitute a shadow
government. A visitor to our country might ask if the Russian
empire has been resurrected and Constantinople is being
threatened again.
These czars have been quietly and purposefully appointed
while the American people were looking the other way -- at
Afghanistan, health care, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, missile
defenses in Europe, and outrage over bailouts and executive pay
-- at things that matter. There are reportedly thirty-two and
possibly more to come, with ten evidently
reporting directly to President Obama, according to media
sources. To be fair, there were numerous czars in the previous
Administration, and some positions are holdovers. But these
appointments present many questions, and the czars of President
Obama seem to have come under more scrutiny than those of
President Bush.
Because these czars are dedicated to many different things,
we must wonder how the President can possibly manage, guide, and
yes, mentor so many of them -- especially when his cabinet
already comprises fifteen federal departments, and there are
numerous federal agencies whose directors are appointed by the
President. Even czars need nurturing.
There is also the disturbing question of why someone would
now wish to serve in that cabinet, when an array of czars,
festooned with the accoutrements of power, has the ability to
countermand, intimidate, undercut and shadow -- furtively
watching cabinet members do their work on both sides of the
Potomac -- even as they sip Evian or French roast at Starbucks.
And why would the President even bother to have a cabinet, when
he can get a quick reading on a crisis from a czar?
In specific terms, we have the potential confusion over
responsibilities that is an auditor's dream: there is a car czar
and an auto recovery czar. One wonders how they decide who gets
to read Car and Driver first -- or listen
to Jan and Dean. There are separate czars for science and
technology even though one can drive the other. Having an
information czar further confuses information with information
technology, making it hard to keep passwords straight. The
possible appointment of a cyber czar will only add chaos to the
mix. The existence of a faith-based czar suggests that agnostics
and atheists are disenfranchised. A czar for the Great Lakes
means that other freshwater sources, and algae, are being
ignored.
The weapons czar must be tripping over the WMD czar, and
California gets attention with a California water czar, while
other western states must remain parched. Sudan is singled out
for a czar, suggesting that all dysfunctional states should have
one, including Somalia and Illinois. Interestingly, there is a
green jobs czar but not an employment czar, implying that trendy,
switched on workers will receive sponsorship, but not those
toiling for decades in basic industries such as concrete, steel
and glass. Further, a health insurance czar may reportedly be
added, obscuring the control of the health czarina.
The fact that there are so few czarinas in the lineup tells
us that much of our work force is not engaged and that we are an
underperforming country -- with much GDP upside. There is also
the disturbing question of whether the pay czar, like the
policeman, is actually your friend. The existence of an urban
affairs czar says that we have forgotten about the farmer and the
need to eat. The government performance czar, a position bound to
make some people smile, seems on a collision course with the
economic czar, stimulus accountability czar, TARP czar, numerous
cabinet members, advisers, and members of Congress.
Not all czars are equal of course, as some report to cabinet or
other senior officials. But in view of the proliferation of
czarist positions, it might be wise to appoint a czar of czars
who will manage the affairs of other czars and critique their
performance -- ideally 24/7, using cyclical 360 feedback, or 720
just to be sure. The number of questions raised by this pool of
czarist talent might also suggest that a questions czar be
appointed, whose principal qualifications would be
inquisitiveness and the ability to poke around with a stick.
Sometimes we learn more about a country by the czars they
do not have: there is no czar for combating narcissism and there
is no stiff upper lip czar. Nor is there a czar to prevent
grandstanding and empty posturing by Congress.