No More Czars
Enough with the “czars” already.
The use of the term “czar” in American government is meant to convey an urgency of the problem and the sheer latitude, power, and gravitas inherent in the person selected to solve the problem. The first such appointment I can remember was Bill Bennett to be the nation’s “drug czar.” How’s that goin’? Now we have meth and something called “pancakes and syrup,” and Bill Bennett hs been borne out as a hypocrite.
We appoint czars when we’re panicked in a crisis. We have seen what happens when we assign unchecked authority to individuals in a crisis. It doesn’t accomplish anything but shipping pallets of cash out the door. Besides, do we really want to continue the practice of calling our leaders “czars?” The last czar in Russia led pogroms, allowed a coup that not only overthrew him but overthrew the Russian monarchy completely, and was, in the end, executed. We want to name an office of leadership for a loser like that? How does it look internationally that we have so informally appropriated the word and throw it around so casually? And what is it about American democracy and using titles that formally were reserved for royalty? Czar? Viceroy? Puh-lease.
We don’t need a “car czar.” We need a plan. And it ain’t rocket science. Stop the hemorrhaging from the mortgage crisis. Do something to help people stay in their homes. Green-light and fund 500 high-priority state infrastructure projects. Tell the big three to go screw themselves; tell them to cut their car prices in half so the things will start leaving the lots. Rebuild and protect the American manufacturing infrastructure. Take CAFTA to the ocean and drown it.
We don’t need a czar. We need some goddamned common sense.
