America does not need more czars
President-elect Obama is considering several "czar" positions for his cabinet to head up everything from technology to cars. But commentator Will Wilkinson says the only thing czars are good at is looking busy.
Commentator Will Wilkinson (The Cato Institute)
More on Commentaries
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Scott Jagow: Lots of speculation about who will land positions in Barack Obama's cabinet. But Obama might also add some other positions into the mix, like czars. Commentator Will Wilkinson doesn't like that idea.
Will Wilkinson: Remember America's can-do, point man in the war on drugs, the so-called "Drug Czar?" Well, if you like czars, you'll love President-elect Barack Obama. He's proposing a new "technology czar," he's considering a "climate czar," and he's even floated the idea of a "car czar."
In tough times like these, America does not need a dose of tragic Russian authoritarianism. America does not need more czars.
Did you know that the Constitution does not mention czars even once? I know, weird. The president's cabinet is composed of heads of various executive offices. These offices, like the Department of Education, are generally proposed by the president and approved by Congress. But the president can create new sub-cabinet-level offices more or less at will -- which is where most so-called "czars" dwell.
Since Nixon created the first "energy czar" in 1973, our government has become czar-crazy. But why? Has a czar ever delivered anything more than the illusion that somebody's got things under control? Jimmy Carter bestowed upon America two inflation czars who then czared inflation to all-time highs. Reagan gave us the Drug Czar, and now that problem's licked!
Czars and special new offices are mainly political theater -- the equivalent of "looking busy." But they can do harm. Czarmania is a symptom of the dangerous ongoing expansion of executive power. The idea that we need an executive branch czar implies that our democratic law-making bodies don't have sufficiently singular will to just get it done.
Czars are too often a cosmetic reaction to problems government itself created. Politicians promise much, but government too rarely delivers. In the end, it's the innovation and enterprise of private citizens, not a swarm of pint-sized Caesars, that really delivers the goods.
Jagow: Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From minneapolis, MN, 11/20/2008
Ms coldsmith of austin said most of what i wanted to say, but i would like to add a bit. Unfettered business gave us polluted air and water, dead miners, monopolies, unsafe working conditions, dead raptors and more. For some that may be a small price to pay for rich executives, but i don't think most would agree.
From Denver, CO, 11/19/2008
There are shallow thinkers who believe permanent government growth is the solution to society's ills. Create a new department for this problem, and a "czar" for that one. Both parties are guilty of this.
NO entity can permanently sustain growth -- not even the US Government. Efficiency, not size, is what produces success.
And a note to Ms. Coldsmith -- Libertarians don't believe business "does no ill", they simply believe free markets will automatically punish businesses who do ill. That is unable to occur when the government provides BAILOUTS and sets up bizarre public-risk entities like Fannie & Freddie who contribute millions to campaigns of future Presidents like Barry Obama.
From Loveland, OH, 11/19/2008
The issue isn't that "our democratic law-making bodies don't have sufficiently singular will to just get it done." It's that the issues facing us are sufficiently complex that even the well informed citizen lacks the time to keep up with them. A "czar" (yes, I hate the term. too) can be invaluable in digesting facts and competing viewpoints, organizing them and making the information comprehensible to our leaders who need to make decisions quickly and responsibly. This seems like a good thing to me.
From bethesda, MD, MD, 11/19/2008
I hate this term "czar", why anyone thinks this makes any sense is beyond me. "Czar" ranks right up there just behind "Homeland Security" with the terms that a soooooo dumb.
From New Orleans, LA, 11/19/2008
If anyone wants to know how ineffectaul a "Czar" is, just check out our Mayor of New Orleans' Recovery Czar "Dr." Ed Blakely. He truly does nothing but try and look busy, but it's hard to do when he spends scant time in the city he's supposed to be Czar-ing in.
From Abu Dhabi, 11/19/2008
My biggest fear that Obama is going to expand the executive branch WAY beyond what Bush has done, further deteriorating the Republic.
From Chicago, IL, 11/19/2008
Aww WILLY... Sad that Obama won, get over it... :-)
Executive overeach is what Bush was famous for, and just recently appointed a copyright czar, which somehow is going to do what????!!! Bush is still going against public opinion as evidence by the many rules he is rushing in at the last minute, after the elections are over.
Now, that being said, having a "CZAR" is nothing new to any administration, so why can't Obama appoint people who will serve out the purpose of his administration?
Just because the Czars of the past 8 years did nothing, doesn't mean that when Obama hires staff they will be incompetent. I have a feeling that Obama will demand rigor or they will be fired. Now you on the other hand, an employee of the anti-government, but big business sponsored Cato Institute, of course are probably pissed off that Obama was elected.
Please everyone google "cato institute" and read more about this ultra conservative institute on the web so you all can consider the source of Willy's EXTREME RIGHT WING view points.
From Austin, TX, 11/19/2008
In denouncing President-elect Obama's plans to field a few "czars" in his administration, Will Wilkinson reveals that for him and other conservatives like him, it's all ideology all the time. Of course, any government office or organization can be reduced to mere window-dressing. And if you are inclined to believe, along with Wilkinson and other libertarians, that government can do no good and business can do no ill, then you eagerly assume that anything a Democratic administration will do will be mere window dressing. I suggest another approach: evaluate government performance on its merits. Such an approach may not make a rousing editorial, but it does make for common sense.
From Falls Church, VA, 11/19/2008
I agree with Will Wilkinson's position on the "czar" positions. Our Government does not need to be bigger or need more management layers. This does not work in the private sector and it will definitely not work in Government. I believe that people within Government should be empowered to do their jobs, be encouraged to bring in and implement new ideas and most important be rewarded for making their programs or divisions effective and efficient. Government personnel should not be rewarded because the size of their programs or the number of people they have working their programs. They need to be measured for their effectiveness and efficiencies. Too much tax monies have been wasted and no progress made.
Most important, Government agencies need to go back to basics -- understand their missions and goals and work towards them.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.