All the Presidents Czars

Historically, one would be quick to associate the term ‘czar’ with the tyrannical monarchs who ruled upon the Russian motherland for centuries. Since then, the term has shifted to a meaning of less malignancy as countries around the world have taken on more democratic forms of government. So what could this country possibly have to do with the term? Is there a hidden room under the White House where secret, unelected, sneering, leaders run the country as the President has a drink on the White House lawn? In a realistic sense, that description seems to hold some truth.

Many are unaware that all presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have taken part in the practice of appointing and having “czars” on their staff. From Reagan to Obama, these presidents have been from the extremes on both sides of the aisle, although some Presidents have been more apt to appointing and using them than others. Many questions can be raised about their role in the government. Among these include: constitutionality, increasing number and power under the Obama administration, role and level of power, and what, if anything, could or should be done about them.

Article 2, Section 2, of our Constitution swiftly sums up the constitutionality of presidential czars. In short, the President can “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” make all appointments, even those not specifically mentioned in the constitution (i.e. czars). This begs the question, “How many of these czars have been appointed with Senate approval?” The exact number can be subjective, the criteria to qualify for the title of czar can vary. For this reason, I will refrain from naming specific numbers of czars, but it is in the dozens, and a majority of those go without senate approval. Ergo, we have presidential appointments, who are not confirmed by the Senate, but still get the position. This is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, so one should not hesitate to assume that the number of czars under Obama is on the higher end, likely the highest of any president so far.

This brings up striking similarities between the Obama and Roosevelt presidencies. Both occurred during economic crisis, and both have been significant in expanding the concept of executive czars. It seems as if the more the government intervenes in affairs, the more czars that are necessitated by the President. Roosevelt had the New Deal program, and Obama had the stimulus bill, both of which needed to be overseen by czars. In stark contrast, the last time there were merely few czars was during the time of Reagan and Bush Sr., a period of a smaller, more conservative government. But here we are today, and Obama is continuing the trend of governmental expansion started under George W. Bush.

Another factor is not just how many czars we have, but how much power those czars have. Having many czars with slight power and influence is no different from having a handful who possess greater power in those areas. A large proportion of current czars have been appointed to overseeing executive programs related to the economic situation. Obama has appointed them to oversee the restructuring of the automotive industry, as well as TARP plan to bailout failing financial institutions, among other significant responsibilities. One example is the man appointed to the first category: the car czar. Although he has a myriad of substantial credentials, this man, Ron Bloom, is one of the crucial players involved in the auto recovery act and will be given a significant amount of power. There is a balance between electivity and power granted, and I think that in many of the cases with Obama’s czars, the amount of power that they receive does not warrant their appointment, especially without senate approval.

To delve further into the subject of Ron Bloom, he is a Harvard graduate, with a solid background in business and politics. Yet, what, from that resume, warrants him being in charge of one of the government’s major economic interventions of our time? This is where the idea of czars becomes slippery. These individuals are picked by the President, and go under absolutely no scrutiny by the people or Congress. The system of checks and balances that this country relies upon to prevent any one entity from becoming too powerful cannot be used to directly regulate them.

In the future, if a president wants to continue using czars to help organize the staff and push the agenda, he or she should do so with either congressional approval or use some means of limiting their power to reasonable levels. Obviously, the option also exists for czars to be done away with altogether and allow the President to use traditional means of organizing his staff. Where will the trend go from here if no action is taken? Is it possible that the problem will continue to expand out of control, like cancerous cells in the human body? Or, if the right people get into office, maybe they will be appropriately reduced in size until we return to the smaller government ideals that this country was founded upon.