Politicized Czars
by Jeffrey Folks
Issue 141 - October 14, 2009

Whenever the leaders of the former Soviet Union wished to “fix” a problem, they appointed a commissar. Not surprisingly, there were commissars for everything. These unvetted ministers had the authority to nationalize industries, ration health care, and redistribute wealth (such as it was) from one class or region to another. The use of commissars was the favored modus operandi of the Soviet state until its downfall in 1991.

Commissars, or “czars” as they are now called, have found renewed favor within the Obama administration. Given the inhospitable treatment of the Romanov family following the Bolshevik revolution, there is a certain irony in referring to the present-day commissar as a “czar,” but apparently the Obama administration doesn’t appreciate it. President Obama has now appointed more czars—at present, at least 36—than all previous presidents combined, and he is only eight months into his first term. What is it about the commissar model of governance that appeals so strongly to Obama?

Maybe it’s that you can’t argue with a czar. During his brief tenure in the White House, the president has made it clear that he does not care for discussion. He seems to think that a policy change, even one as great as the nationalization of our health care system, can be formulated behind closed doors, proclaimed in a vague and pompous speech, and then rammed through Congress. Such an approach is bad enough, but apparently it is not outrageous enough for this president. Knowing that democratic bodies sometimes fail to arrive at the desired effect—even those democratic bodies with veto-proof majorities such as exist today—the president has put in place a network of autocratic czars that will do his bidding regardless. With this end-run around the Comstitution, the president is signaling that officials like Carol Browner or, until recently, Van Jones, can be entrusted with a great deal of power without ever being confirmed by the Senate.

The great thing about political czars is that they can execute policy and redirect spending in ways that pay off constituencies in ways that admit no discussion or opposition. If one wished to restrict executive pay, a policy laden with demagogic potential, one could appoint a pay czar like Kenneth Feinberg. If one wished to cater to that segment of the electorate who are not overly concerned about securing our borders, one might appoint the same border czar who, as a Clinton appointee, stated that he was not in favor of policing “economic migrants.” If one wished to appeal to environmental activists, one might elevate Clinton deputy interior secretary David Hayes to California water czar and then see what happens to the San Joaquin valley. Or one might appoint an unbiased soul like Todd Stern, a negotiator for the Kyoto climate accord who headed the Initiative on Global Climate Change, as climate czar. Another environmentalist pleaser is science czar John Holdren, a proponent of strict CO2 regulation and co-author of a 1971 “scientific” article that predicted “ecocatastrophe” as “almost certain” by the year 2000. (The eastern U. S. has just had one of its coolest years on record with no indication of ecocatastrophe.) Or how about Carol Browner? As energy czar, Ms Browner seems ideally suited to bring a gusher of new energy supplies to market. As a former worker for the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, she can be trusted to keep our tanks filled up. 

If, for example, one wished to reward unions for their political support, one might appoint Ron Bloom as manufacturing czar. According to ABC news, Bloom was among those who pressed for the resignation of GM chief Rich Wagoner and helped arrange the takeover of GM and Chrysler by government and labor unions at the expense of Chrysler bondholders and other private investors. Bloom must have seemed well qualified for his post, given the fact that he worked for the United Steelworkers for thirteen years right up to his appointment and had previously worked for the Service Employees International Union.

If one wished to demonstrate just how important faith-based initiatives are to the Obama administration, why not appoint Joshua DuBois as Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mr. DuBois, 27 years old, possesses a wealth of experience, having served as intern under Rep Charles B. Rangel and worked on the Obama campaign. That should send a message as to what kind of involvement Obama wants organized religion to play in his administration.

At least with Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “close friend” who serves as “regulatory czar,” the president got it right. It does appear that Mr. Sunstein wishes to regulate just about everything. In Republic.com, his 2002 book, Sunstein suggested an extension of the fairness doctrine to the internet. Moveon.org might feature three hours a day of Rush Limbaugh, while Rush could post snippets from the Rev. Wright.

Then, of course, there is, or was, Van Jones, whose resume is too well known to need repeating. What may have been overlooked in the colorful reports of Mr. Jones’s antics is the precise nature of his job description: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. How is it that an individual who, so far as I know, has never worked in any productive capacity in the free market should be tagged as an adviser on enterprise and innovation, to say nothing of green jobs? One has to ask the question: how many of Obama’s czars actually know what a job is?

That brings us to Obama’s health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle. Having graduated from Harvard law school, like so many of Obama’s bright young commissars, DeParle contributed to the health care reform fiasco under President Clinton. More recently she has been employed as an adjunct professor and managing director of CCMP capital, a private equity firm focused among other things on health care infrastructure.

Obama’s appointment of dozens of czars implies an authoritarian, top-down view of the world. Those who have relied on commissars in the past believed that a small political elite had every right to force their radical ideology on the populace. They believed that the masses of workers did not know what was good for them. Only a government of commissars could do what was necessary—and by any means necessary. They thought they were acting in the service of noble goals of fairness and social justice, and they had no use for discussion or debate.

Now that we have a president who believes that we must always “act now,” even before a bill has been read, it is not surprising that commissars are back in vogue. Whatever cannot be accomplished due to the impediment of our nation’s Constitution and democratic traditions can be passed along to the appropriate czar with a staff and budget, and unchallengeable authority, of his own. This is the way to get things done, especially when doing so involves going against the wishes of a majority of the electorate.

Dr. Jeffrey Folks taught for thirty years in universities in Europe, America, and Japan. He has published nine books and over a hundred articles on American culture and politics in national journals and newspapers. He is currently writing on issues in American literature, media, and education.

Post this article to your Facebook profile