I know, I know, we’ve had “drug czars” and “energy czars.” But really, when you come right down to it, isn’t there something un-American about the whole idea of anointing a government official with the title “czar”? Something that smacks of unaccountability, for example, and that seems to belong to the world of diktats and ukases rather than the world of democratic government, the consent of the governed, and all those quaint ideas that were the staple of civics classes, back when we had civics classes? [UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way about denominating certain American government officials "czars."]
Consider the latest chapter in the rancid little drama that is the career of Steven Rattner, until yesterday Obama’s Car Czar. He’s the chap who oversaw the firing of Rick Wagoner from the company that used to be known as General Motors. He’s also the chap whose private equity fund, the Quadrangle Group, paid more than $1 million to receive New York State pension fund business. Back in April, when I first explained “Why Steven Rattner is Above the Law“, I pointed out that if you or I were (per impossible) to try this pay-to-play gambit with a state pension fund, we’d have the law on us before you can say “Andrew Cuomo.” If you are Steven Rattner, Obama Czar, however, you get The New York Times to sniff that “There is no indication in the complaint that Mr. Rattner faces criminal or civil charges in connection with the inquiry.”
Well, that was April. Mr. Rattner’s sudden departure from his Detroit throne raises some new questions. One industry commentator noted that “there also is the distinct possibility that Rattner could get further ensnared in the pension kickback mess, in which he’s already been tangentially implicated. Quadrangle has not yet reached a settlement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and there also is talk that Lev Dassin, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and California AG Jerry Brown are itching to wade into the scandalous waters. Not saying to expect an indictment, but something more damaging than a slap on the wrist.”
Well, it will certainly be interesting to see how the story unfolds. The deeper question, however, goes far beyond the fate of Steven Rattner — a bit player, after all, however dubious. The deeper question concerns what George Will identified as “the tincture of lawlessness” that hovers about the Obama administration. Will was thinking primarily of the way Chrysler’s supposedly secured bondholders were treated, but in fact that maculation affects many aspects of the Obama administration. I suspect that key officials in the administration — beginning, I fear, with the President himself — do not really understand what the rule of law is all about. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is one evidence of that deficit. Senator Al Franken, reverting to his earlier career as a comedian, publicly stated that in his view Sotomayor was “the most experienced Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.” (Ha, ha: what a card!) Obama’s reliance on powerful lieutenants who proceed with little or no public vetting or oversight — a.k.a., “czars” like Steven Rattner — is another dramatic example of the administration’s impatience with the rule of law. According to one report, Obama has named at least 18 such czars — people who wield enormous power but who are appointed without Senatorial scrutiny and who proceed more or less without accountability, except to the President.
That’s the way the autocrats of old did things. But until recently we tried to do them differently in the United States. If Sonia Sotomayor is appointed to the Supreme Court — as the smart money says she will be — federal workers will be busy for some weeks chipping off the blindfolds from the figures of Justice that decorate many court houses throughout the country. Justice will be anything but blind if the “wise Latina” has her way. But when that exercise in judicial vandalism is complete, we might have to to set those workers the much bigger task of erasing the bit about “advise and consent” from all available copies of the Constitution of the United States.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
54 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Why You Were Right to Think that Czars are Un-American:[...] Read the rest of the story here. [...]
Jul 14, 2009 - 12:47 pm 2. David Thomson:The very use of the term czar is something of a Freudian slip. It is a subconscious way of asserting that elites should run the country. Those benevolent and wonderful folks who graduated from the “best” universities should tell the rest of us what to do. Why should we lesser mortals worry our inferior minds over such matters? Don’t we have more important things to worry about like the death of Michael Jackson? Obama does indeed love the proles. Our faith in the Anointed One will be richly rewarded. After all, he has already saved countless jobs.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:13 pm 3. homeroclon:the company he (obama) keeps is a mirror of the person. for the most part they are wack jobs.
it is painful to see people mince words when they take about them …or apologise for them. why wont you all take them for their word?
a bunch of tax cheats, racists and criminals.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:22 pm 4. homeroclon:the company he (obama) keeps is a mirror of the person. for the most part they are wack jobs.
it is painful to see people mince words when they talk about them …or apologise for them. why wont you all take them for their word?
a bunch of tax cheats, racists and criminals.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:22 pm 5. Professor Guvinoff:Obama and the 18 Romanoffs. Not quite as bad as Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:32 pm 6. Jeff Tyler:It always starts with words. With innonocent new words that become acceptable by society. And then it’s too late. For anyone who knows anything about Rissian history the word “czar” applied day-to-day as an US governmetn official title should be a HUGE warning. The article is spot-on, but unfortunetly this is all preaching to the choir (just like the rest of PJM articles). The only people who read them are those who already have similar views. The rest is still expecting nirvana, not being completely off yes-we-canning.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:43 pm 7. the elephant's child:There are, I understand, so far 31 Czars. If each one gets $150,000, that’s $4,650,000 extra to what–guide, overrule, control, influence the department secretaries. That relationship is unclear. But it makes a nice little addition to the deficit.
And now we have a Union guy as the new Car Czar? The Progressives have always been impatient with unfortunate ideas like the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the rule of law, but the lack of respect for ordinary propriety is pretty amazing.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:45 pm 8. bibio44:‘…“the tincture of lawlessness” that hovers about the Obama administration.’
I’ll say. The administration evades the law every day it does not prosecute Bush/Cheney for their crimes.
Jul 14, 2009 - 1:45 pm 9. toker53:7 I don’t mean to nitpick but Mike Huckaby was playing a game on Saturday called dancing With the Czars. I am quite sure he counted 32 with the potential for another if the past is any indication. A story in my Local Rag
Jul 14, 2009 - 2:15 pm 10. Jack Olson:http://www.heraldnews.com/opinions/x737368698/GUEST-OPINION-Pass-SAFE-Internet-Act-07-14-09.
It is an opinion piece but written by a fellow who wrote the book on protecting the Children from the Internet. # guesses yhat after the 175 mil that they are talking about for Implementing this program who would you think will be tapped to be the Czar ofthe Internet.
Formerly, whenever the federal government failed at something, the majority party in Congress would create a new executive department so as to look as if it took action on the problem. That’s how we got a Department of Energy which doesn’t produce any energy and a Department of Education which doesn’t educate anybody. Now we’re getting “czars” to deal with matters Congress didn’t see fit to create executive departments for, like drugs and automobiles.
Jul 14, 2009 - 2:27 pm 11. "progressive"watch:Stop Obama,the usurper, by 2010 or you will be the outlaw and jailed or silenced or perhaps eliminated.
Jul 14, 2009 - 3:17 pm 12. antaine:“8. bibio44:
I’ll say. The administration evades the law every day it does not prosecute Bush/Cheney for their crimes.”
probably because there were no actual crimes, just stuff you’ve been told were crimes and are eager to believe because it was what you wanted to hear.
But you never know, if we can redefine “torture” so waterboarding seems to actually qualify (ridiculous), who knows how far they can go redefining “crime?”
Jul 14, 2009 - 4:12 pm 13. ed:You mean federal employees, not federal workers. Not the same thing.
Jul 14, 2009 - 4:18 pm 14. David:Since we’re talking about a species of government minister in an expanding State Bureaucracy, why don’t we remove the distorting lens of the term “czar” and restore its true signfication: commissar. Henceforth, we might refer to ‘our growing commissariat’ without confusion….
Jul 14, 2009 - 4:24 pm 15. Gina:Speaking of appointments with or without Senatorial consent, does the O have a cabinet? Have they ever met? Has the media ever reported on even one meeting between the President and his Cabinet?
Maybe he can’t stay in Washington long enough to meet with them. Has there ever been a President that spent as much time traveling and speechifying as this one?
Jul 14, 2009 - 4:40 pm 16. Hubbub:#15 Gina -
I have to agree with you about Obama’s gallivanting around the globe. The Man has left quite a carbon footprint after being in office for only six months or so.
I hear his next trip of remorse may be to Tasmania where he will apologize to the indigenous devils for the buffonification of them by the Hollywood cartoon industry.
Jul 14, 2009 - 6:05 pm 17. Pat J:Hmm. Wasn’t Karl Rove Bush’s domestic policy czar? In fact the Bush administration was noted for its expansion of executive power. Quite a few czars as I remember. Oh well. At least that get’s you people away from silly comments about teleprompters.
Jul 14, 2009 - 7:58 pm 18. John Ford:Elephant’s Child: I believe I read that there are 34 czars so far. They each get $172,000 and have a staff of 10.
If true, that’s $5,848,000 for the czars and who-knows-what for their many czarettes.
John
Jul 14, 2009 - 8:02 pm 19. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER KIMBALL: Steven Rattner redux, or Why You Were Right to think that Czars are Un-American….:[...] ROGER KIMBALL: Steven Rattner redux, or Why You Were Right to think that Czars are Un-American. [...]
Jul 15, 2009 - 4:33 am 20. sodacrackers:#15 Gina
Jul 15, 2009 - 4:36 am 21. mad_as_H:He is travelling so much because he ran for and thinks he won President of the World. Actually he is still running.
Recall your Senator and Representative IMMEDIATELY. DEMAND they get home and discuss the issues instead of back-room dealing in DC. Bring the darn bill home so WE can read it.
Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to FORCE another major social and financial change upon us before we can mobilize.
The only way to stop this before 2010 is RECALL NOW!
Jul 15, 2009 - 4:39 am 22. red:Wasn’t Karl Rove Bush’s domestic policy czar?
No he wasn’t. Unless you want to also call Carville, Eisenstat, Hopkins domestic policy czars.
Expansion of executive power?
In a day where Obama runs General Motors, Chrysler, Citibank, and AIG – and is aiming to run 17 percent more of the economy
(”Your family’s health – brought to you by President Obama”)
you’re complaining of Bush’s expansion of executive power? What a joke.
The trolls are really lame today.
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:00 am 23. Rob Crawford:“why don’t we remove the distorting lens of the term “czar” and restore its true signfication: commissar”
Naw. “Czar” has its roots in “Caesar” as the term for the ruler, just like kaizer. If we want to really be accurate, call these people “Little Caesars”.
(Apologies to the pizza chain and Edward G. Robinson.)
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:25 am 24. Rob Crawford:“Hmm. Wasn’t Karl Rove Bush’s domestic policy czar?”
No.
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:27 am 25. Paul A'Barge:I don’t like Sotomayor either but I don’t buy the bit about removing the “advise and consent” from the Constitution with respect to her appointment to the USSC.
Help me out here. What are you talking about?
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:37 am 26. eon:Ratner’s behavior reminds me irresistibly of the “corporate raiders” of the 1990s; take over a company (or in his case, an industry), fire all its leaders and replace them with your own cronies, loot, gut, and trash it to enrich yourself, then bail out before it all collapses into receivership, while claiming that you “improved it”, “made it lean and mean”, and “added value” with your “brilliant, innovative management style”.
The same MO (modus operandi), just done with the force of government behind it as coercion to ensure no resistance. The parallel with the “looters” and their various “Unification Plans” in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” is almost too close to believe.
Don’t be too surprised if Ratner reappears in The One’s Rogues’ Gallery of Thugs in Three-Piece Suits, when The One decides he wants to apply the “we destroyed the village in order to save it” policy to another industry which he has a visceral hatred of.
Look out, gun manufacturers, talk radio, and publishers who print non-”progressive” books; you’re probably next.
(To say nothing of the energy industry.)
clear ether
eon
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:45 am 27. Galen:Actually the proper word would be ‘gauleiter”
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:46 am 28. k. pablo:or coordinator/ This was the german word used
to create a parallel government under the NASDAP. Obama is creating a parallel government.
Roger, maybe you prefer the word “commissar” to “czar”?
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:48 am 29. e:So the Czar ruled Russia before the communist revolution there, is there supposed to be a parellel here? Czar is from the word Caesar, the name of the Roman Emperors. Anyone remember what Julius and Augustus (then Octavian) Caesar did to the old Roman Republic?
And what’s the purpose of these czar’s anyways? Don’t we have Secretaries in the cabinet for this?
8. bibio44: I’ll say. The administration evades the law every day it does not prosecute Bush/Cheney for their crimes.
I think you’re right bibio44, this should go to trial so people can either see the truth of what really happened, or so they can see the mockery that justice is about to become. I welcome this, show us truth or speak your blatant lies. The people will know the difference.
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:52 am 30. blotto:Wasn’t it the MSM who began using the term czar when we announced our war against drugs? I think they did it to demonstrate their distaste for fighting against drugs, which they want legalized.
Today we see the word used affectionately to describe the aggrandizement of power to the Dear Leader.
Jul 15, 2009 - 6:31 am 31. john kelly:do you get the feeling that because he needs so many “czars” that he knows he’s just not up to the job???
Jul 15, 2009 - 7:03 am 32. Pete:‘Czar’ isn’t actually their official title, like the article states.
The drug-czar official title, for example, is “Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy”.
So call him whatever you want, but ‘Czar’ is just common slang, not the actual job title.
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:19 am 33. Cindy Sue Causey:THANK YOU..!!
)
Keep saying this myself but, hey, I know and respect the limitations of my own Fingertips’ reach (well, save for a blip across the screen of one said “Karl”)..
Had never heard of “czar” being used in America for anything until this administration.. Obama’s bad luck that he has the ever-broadening of the Internet to blame, er, thank for the highlighting of his (frighteningly) heightened use of the same..
Didn’t know how much was being paid for them, but I stand by my response to aforementioned Karl.. Taxpayer $$ are being used to pay these folks therefore there WILL BE accountability to the taxpayers for said expense..
Notice I did not say “if taxpayer $$”.. I don’t even want to think of what that would mean for the direction our country is headed, nay, is being willfully driven..
Cyber hugs from Talking Rock..
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:29 am 34. bibio44:“I think you’re right bibio44, this should go to trial so people can either see the truth of what really happened, or so they can see the mockery that justice is about to become. I welcome this, show us truth or speak your blatant lies. The people will know the difference.”
Jeez, e, don’t you read the papers? Just last week? The anti-terrorist campaign that, illegally, wasn’t reported to Congress? Is that “blatant” enough for ya? And one could go on and on….
BTW, “czar,” in this sense, is nothing but a journalistic nickname that’s been around for decades. It has nothing to do with this administration or any other. Thus, Roger’s column really has nothing to do with anything.
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:30 am 35. Silicon Valley Jim:If true, that’s $5,848,000 for the czars and who-knows-what for their many czarettes.
And just think of the bill for the czardines!
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:33 am 36. AD:If we elect the CPUSA into power, will they banish all the Czars to (what would be the American equivalent of Sverdlovsk)?
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:35 am 37. Strawman:The term “czar” was invented by the press as a pejorative. The first “czar” was in the Nixon administration. Of course, now they’re stuck with it.
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:48 am 38. Silicon Valley Jim:I don’t like Sotomayor either but I don’t buy the bit about removing the “advise and consent” from the Constitution with respect to her appointment to the USSC.
Help me out here. What are you talking about?
I can’t read Roger’s mind, but I’m guessing that he’s talking about appointing people with powers equivalent to those of Cabinet members (the “czars”) without advice and consent from the Senate, not about confirming Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Jul 15, 2009 - 8:54 am 39. willem:Government Lost. Are we are rapidly transitioning from our governmental history of being served by the exceptional to being ruled by the generation of exception?
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:00 am 40. Brian Richard Allen:Gauleiter is one of the correct words. And Apparatchik and Commissar are others.
But given that this RICO-racketeering mob are but lying, looting, thieving stand-over and shake-down bloody gangsters — and are in many regards quite like the original fascist, Mussolini, from whom the sail-eared simpleton is surely cloned, I quite like Consigliere.
Brian Richard Allen
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:00 am 41. Pat J:Los Angeles – Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad
Karl Rove was also the Hurrican Katrina Reconstruction “Czar.” Heckuva job there. Sorry if I’m picking on poor Karl Rove. I forget many of you consider him a great American.
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:12 am 42. Nan in Can:I’m picturing all of those blinderless figures as having cartoonified bug-eyes… like Lisa Simpson by the time all is said and done. Idiocracy has come.
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:25 am 43. Nan in Can:Don’t you think, with all of these czars running about, there is need for a Czar Czar? You know… to track what all of the Czars are doing and report directly to the president about it?
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:28 am 44. Kaitian:“Jeez, e, don’t you read the papers? Just last week? The anti-terrorist campaign that, illegally, wasn’t reported to Congress? Is that “blatant” enough for ya? And one could go on and on….”
The Gray Old Lady aka NY Times reported on this back in guess when. 2002! Give me a break.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/international/15INTE.html?pagewanted=1
Read that article. Congress gave explicit approval to go after Al Qaeda. What was the program that Panetta supposedly discovered was still active. The same damn thing.
You know what we’ve been doing for the last 8 years? Using predator drones to off them. It’s just PR BS to throw attention away from Obama.
Jul 15, 2009 - 9:37 am 45. The Anchoress — A First Things Blog:[...] people like this into your administration, as “czars” unquestioned by congress, unanswerable to anyone but you, and certainly not to the American [...]
Jul 15, 2009 - 10:33 am 46. Dave in SC:For what it’s worth, the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, or “drug czar”, is subject to Senate confirmation. See 21 U.S. Code 1703(a)(1). So the drug czar is somewhat different from the other “czars” who have proliferated recently.
Jul 15, 2009 - 12:35 pm 47. Steve:The reason for all the czars is because Obama knows no one he associates with could pass a security check or get confirmed by the Senate. Probably they are all criminals of one sort or another.
Jul 15, 2009 - 1:50 pm 48. JED:So why are we messing around with the Russian, Italian, or Rome names when American Chicago is language rich for titles? Why not try “Enforcer” like Frank Nitti to Al Capone? Or try Frank Nitti with the reverse title of “Director of South Chicago Operations and Compliance.”
Jul 15, 2009 - 3:57 pm 49. Fafnir:Rats and Ratner bailing out before the ship sinks. Anyone want to bet who’s next? My money’s on Hillary to leave before the end of the year. Actually poor Nicky, the last Russian Czar wasn’t the problem. As you know he and his family were gunned down at Ekaterina. The problem was the Bolsheviks. Today, the bolsheviks are called various name: ACORN; liberals; Alyinsky; Democrats
Jul 15, 2009 - 4:21 pm 50. Thalpy:Al Franken wouldn’t know competence if it bit him on the bee hind.The price for our people’s failure to pay attention will be staggering in every way.
Jul 15, 2009 - 5:29 pm 51. davod:“why don’t we remove the distorting lens of the term “czar” and restore its true signfication: commissar.”
Commiczar.
Jul 15, 2009 - 11:34 pm 52. davod:WRT to the new car Czar – Ratner gave the autoworkers union what it wanted. It is only fair that another union gets its share.
What next – a car czar who once represented investors?
Jul 15, 2009 - 11:36 pm 53. Ratatosk:I recommend reading TSOG: The Thing That Ate The Constitution by Robert Anton Wilson. TSOG stands for Tsarist Occupational Government and it digs into where the concept came from, what its doing to us today and overall an excellent collection of essays with a libertarian, leave me alone government sort of bent.
Jul 17, 2009 - 9:04 am 54. Leatherneck:With Marxism, it appears Czar come along for the ride.
The truth is hard to take, but what Obama is doing is un-American. Illegal aliens having anchor babies, and living on the sugar tit is un-American, and having CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hizboallah inside these United States is un-American.
Our government has sold out to special interests, and will vote on anything after they receive money for their next election.
Children all.
Jul 17, 2009 - 6:48 pm