Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A reader sent me a press release sent out by a Republican candidate for Congress from Ohio named Paul Schiffer that is chock full of demagoguery on the entirely fake issue of "czars" in the White House.
Paul Schiffer, Republican Candidate for Congress in Ohio's 16th Congressional District, has written legislation to outlaw Barack Obama's dozens of 'CZARS' in the White House. Schiffer promises to introduce this legislation in Congress after election to Congress. Schiffer explained:"I believe 'Czars' are un-American. It started out as almost an inside-the-Beltway joke under Republican Administrations -- calling a Presidential adviser a 'Czar.' But the idea of Presidential 'Czars' has become a worrying trend. If we continue on this path, Presidential over-use of White House 'Czars' threatens to weaken America's democratic system."
As I've written before, those administration officials, now and before, who are subjectively labeled "czars" fall in to three categories:
1. Department heads who go through all the normal processes of Senate advice and consent.
2. White House advisers on various issues who have no statutory authority and do nothing but advise the president on the issues on which they are experts.
3. Ambassadors-at-large devoted to specific issues, like Richard Holbrooke, technically called a "Special Representative" to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
None of these are at all controversial to any rational person. The first category are just regular executive branch officials. The second and third categories have been used by every president, regardless of party, for as long as anyone has been alive. There is nothing even remotely threatening about them.
"Placing the authority for Executive Branch business under unelected, unaccountable 'Czars' confuses and undermines our American system. The U.S. Constitution establishes the idea of Departments whose heads must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Concentrating more and more power in the hands of 'Czars' has the effect of setting up a whole new, alternative 'shadow government' outside of our American system. This is creating worry among some patriots that at a time of national crisis and confusion, these Czars could serve as a power center outside of our established American system of Departments, with Secretaries confirmed by the United States Senate."
By "patriots," of course, he actually means "ignorant people and/or demagogues exploiting the fears of those ignorant people." Which is pretty much what patriot has come to mean in any context. Advisers already do not have any authority other than their ability to advise the president. Department heads who are sometimes subjectively called "czars" do have such authority and they always have.
His legislation would change absolutely nothing while claiming to save the nation from a non-existing threat. That's pretty much the definition of demagoguery.
Politics
Comments
Large corporations in that are not in staid dying industries often employ what is called a matrix organization. Anyone with a business degree can expound on this given its taught at the 200 level and is a required course at most colleges to obtain a business degree (it's also required at the MBA level). I worked for one company that distinguished itself amongst its competition by using matrixed organizations in a way that provided noticeably superior performance results to its customers and was its primary ad blurb.
Matrix organizations employ teams headed by person/group that cuts across functional lines. Oftentimes functional groups, even those that distinguish themselves as being competent, will focus on priorities that are not in the best interests of the overall organization. Companies that have achieved functional competence often use matrixes to mitigate this reality. Consider these teams outside the functional stovepipes, let's call them "projects". It is not easy to exist in these projects since they normally* don't own the resources needed to achieve their projects, they instead merely interface with the functional groups in a manner that aligns the priorities of the functional with the objectives of the project.
A matrix organization is only successful where competence and professionalism already exist. They also don't do well when resources, either people, money, or equipment, are in very short supply (all organizations obviously have limited resources).
I am a proponent of the Czars since they do provide an interface with the public/media, the White House, the Congress, that focuses on core objective where ownership is spread across major functional groups. The perfect federal government example of a so-called Czar though they aren't called that is our Unified Combatant Commanders, such as CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus. These Unified Combatant Command units do own their resources (see asterik below) and cut across the service units where they instead focus on a region of the country. Therefore, in my analogy, CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus is a "Czar" or "project mgr." who relies on functional excellence and resources from the Navy/Marines, Army, Air Force while his unit focuses on the geographical area of the world. While CENTCOM Commanders report directly to the Sec. of the Defense, there is obviously a lot of interfacing go on with the service chiefs since they ultimately recruit and initially train and provide other resources.
The fact that conservatives freak-out out by Czars who are effectively attempting to utilize matrix organizational design to achieve objectives is just one more example of the world passing their ideology by. From my perspective, it's like arguing for a cavalry of horsemen rather than tanks in the 1930s. I do think those that advocate that certain "project mgrs" go through the advise and consent process with Congress is arguable. Especially since successful matrix organizations often see power shift significantly to the "project mgrs." and away from functional groups like we see with the Unified Combatant Command units. BTW, CENTCOM commanders already require the approval of the Senate.
*There are matrix organizations who own their own functional experts such as the Unified Combatant Command Units. There are also matrixes where functional experts who aren't managers can even have two bosses, one is their project mgr. and the other is their functional mgr. I ignore this aspect since I don't see it in the federal government.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 10, 2010 12:54 PM
If you're ever in the mood for some light reading on czars, the short prepared statement by John Harrison, a professor at the UVA Law School, is worth a peek. Harrison -- a former Bork clerk and Reagan DOJ lawyer, by no means a liberal -- explains clearly and succinctly why there's no legal problem with czars at all (though, he concludes, there's an important policy question about whether it's a good thing for informal advisers to have so much influence).
From the statement:
Posted by: Chuck | March 10, 2010 12:56 PM
I don't understand what the proposed legislation (or legislation that would be proposed if Schiffer is elected) says. What does it mean to "outlaw Czars"? Surely he can't be saying he wants to make it illegal for a President to have expert advisers?
Posted by: JuliaL | March 10, 2010 1:11 PM
JuliaL, #3: What does it mean to "outlaw Czars"?
I think he wants to prevent Obama from becoming the autocratic ruler of Russia.
(Jeez, guys, someone was gonna say it!)
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 10, 2010 1:15 PM
Since Czars fight Communists it is clear to me that Paul Schiffer is trying to dearm America for the invading Communist invasion. This is why us Tea Party Patriots are outside the the two party system!
Tongue firmly in cheek.
Posted by: Justin Gilmore | March 10, 2010 1:29 PM
I may be wrong, and if I am, please correct me, but, isn't the term "czar" in this context nothing more than a shorthand term used by lazy journalists (or editors) to convey a concept that would otherwise require some intermediate level of literacy and cognitive ability to understand? Who actually uses this term other than the media or demagogues and their dog whistle trained minions? How would this idiot even write such legislation? Would he include "grand poobahs" and "big mucketymucks" as well? Sometimes when I see such knuckleheads within reach of any kind of power in this country I could just weep.
Posted by: Budbear | March 10, 2010 1:31 PM
I'm thinking it's all about that word. "Czar" just scares people, because it sounds so UN-AMERICAN.
I wonder if "tsar" would work better . . . .
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2010 1:34 PM
I would say it's a shorthand term used by lazy journalists or editors to convey a concept that would otherwise be just plain unsexy - and yes, sadly, in our current media culture anything that demands a modicum of intellectual engagement is pretty much automatically unsexy.
Posted by: DaveL | March 10, 2010 1:36 PM
Well, if czars are outlawed, we'll have to switch to tsars.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 10, 2010 1:37 PM
Maybe they should be called kaisers or caesars. After all, those two words also have yummy connotations.
Posted by: pough | March 10, 2010 1:47 PM
Keep it Slavic and call them kolaches.
Two words I wish could be dropped from the vocabulary of all pundits, elected officials (or wannabes), and journalists for the next decade or so, are "hero" and "patriot."
Posted by: Shay | March 10, 2010 1:55 PM
Meh. Just retitle them "Mavericks".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 10, 2010 2:18 PM
FOX could capitalize on anti-muslim hysteria and call them "sultans".
I submit my candidacy for "Sultan of Swing".
Posted by: DaveL | March 10, 2010 2:21 PM
Oh for the love of Pete! Let's be really pro-active: call them hedgehogs. I think that conveys everything we need to know about all of these people.
Posted by: JustaTech | March 10, 2010 2:36 PM
OK, fine. No mare czars.
In other news, the Obama administration announces the names of 27 new oberfuhrers ...
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | March 10, 2010 3:08 PM
What's wrong with The Cars? I'm all in favor of giving Rick Ocasek more power -- Special Secretary with Carte Blanche for Awesome Hair, maybe?
Posted by: xebecs | March 10, 2010 3:32 PM
How, 'bout "Poobahs"? I'd like to be the Porn Poobah.
Posted by: Chuck C | March 10, 2010 3:38 PM
Modus @ 12:
Actually that's pretty perceptive. People who hire the types of people that need to champion a cause whose scope crosses functional boundaries often seek-out people whose personality is partially described as a maverick (or a "cowboy" mentality). The whole "Czar" title is in no way descriptive of the task or the responsibility; at least your throw-off one-liner describes a defining attribute.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 10, 2010 3:41 PM
Michael Heath, I meant it more in a "mess with the Right by using their own redefinition of words against them kind"* of way, but your reinterpretation is real smartlike, so I'm taking credit for it as well.
And it wasn't a "throw-off one-liner". Statements like that demean the hard work of my entire writing staff. They spend literally months tearing down and analyzing entirely, for them, alien worldviews, then months more figuring out how to expose the moral, historical, social and economic shortcomings of those worldviews with a single, terse, skewering statement. Making shit like that takes talent.
* Imagine McCain having to pander to "the base" by saying "I am not a 'maverick'", ironically making an attempt to dissemble closer to the truth than most of what's come out of his mouth since back when he went in to negotiate an anti-torture bill, came out with a clenched fists full of air and claimed victory, if my murky sense of history hasn't failed me. After that, we can work on re-redefining "rogue". If there's time, we can try to redefine "fiscal conservative" as, well, "fiscal conservative". That one will take some work and won't bear fruit until the fiscal conservatives again hold the reins. We have to take the long view, I think.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 10, 2010 4:31 PM
Just call them "high muck-a-muck".
Since that is a North American term, and not a Russian term it shold be ok. Since it has a negative conotation and these are Obama's high muck-a-mucks, that makes the title doubleplusgood.
Posted by: daedalus2u | March 10, 2010 5:11 PM
"1. Department heads who go through all the normal processes of Senate advice and consent."
Senate consent at appointment may make it Constitutional, but it doesn't make it democratic. If I were to get a bill passed in Congress declaring myself and my children after me to be monarchs, I wouldn't expect the people living 500 years from now under the iron fist of my descendants to hold themselves up as an example of democracy in action.
It's interesting, though, that Republicans are the ones making this complaint. Typically, they like to pontificate about how "the United States is a republic, not a democracy" while the left seeks more democratic control over our lives.
Posted by: Miko | March 10, 2010 5:48 PM
Or we could call them by their job titles. The Drug Czar is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The TARP Czar is the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States.
Drug Czar and TARP Czar just sound cooler and more powerful than the actual titles, plus they use up space in news articles.
Posted by: katydid13 | March 10, 2010 5:55 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake, it's not an actual hereditary title, you know. Are you seriously suggesting we hold an election for every. damn. civil. servant?
Posted by: DaveL | March 10, 2010 6:06 PM
If we outlaw czars, then only outlaws will have czars...
In United States, Czars cross functional boundaries, in Russia functional boundaries cross Czars...
(thank you all, I'll be here all week, try the veal and don't forget to tip the server, literally)
Posted by: JimNorth | March 10, 2010 6:32 PM
America needs more electric czars. Or at least hybrid czars.
Posted by: ambulocetacean | March 10, 2010 8:42 PM
Great, now Putin will never be able to visit.
Posted by: MPL | March 10, 2010 10:56 PM
In modern right-wing usage, "patriot" is a portmanteau of "patsy" and "rioter."
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 11, 2010 3:46 AM
@Justin Gilmore
Indeed, speaking as a parent I am shocked an appalled at how communist sympathisers like Paul Schiffer have hijacked words like "patriot" to continue their self confessed Republican jihad against hardworking families and the American way of life, a jihad he even refers to as a beltway insider conspiracy. These republican elitists and communist fifth columnists should be brought to account!
Will no one think of the children?
Posted by: Captain Obvious | March 11, 2010 6:36 AM
At least candidate Paul Schiffer admitted that the term 'czar' in this context started under Republican administrations. When this non-issue broke last year, all the nutzoid talking points claimed Obama was the only one who had ever had policy czars.
Posted by: Hanspeter | March 11, 2010 6:50 AM
JuliaL writes: "I don't understand what the proposed legislation (or legislation that would be proposed if Schiffer is elected) says."
Julia, that's because Ed Brayton of the misnamed "Science Blog" intentionally cut off the part of the press release that would have informed you about that. Ed intentionally misrepresented the press release and the legislation in order to deceive you.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7292713219.html
Paul Schiffer further clarified:
"My legislation allows Presidents to have any advisors they want, and call them anything they want. However, White House advisors like 'Czars' will have no authority over any part of the U.S. Government. My legislation would prohibit any White House advisor from exercising authority over any Federal or State government official, employee, office or department, and would protect every government official and employee from not obeying any White House advisor other than the President himself. The President, of course, is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and the President may always act under his own authority in his own name. Obviously, my legislation creates exceptions for any special chain of command established by statute that might be agreed to between the Congress and the President, such as with national security matters."
The actual legislation can be found at:
http://www.schiffer2010.com/legislation.html
Posted by: Jonathon Moseley | March 11, 2010 10:27 AM
Meanwhile, responding to Ed Brayton's main post, Ed shows that he has been badly brainwashed by the anti-science prevalent in our modern world.
The anti-science of today uses a number of tricks and gimmicks, one of which is to redefine the problem to avoid confronting the reality of the scientific problem at hand. Modern day anti-science thrives on not answering real questions or confronting real observed phenomenon, but instead using the magic wand of re-definition -- submerged in mountains of obfuscation -- to answer a different question that is more convenient.
So Ed uses the magic wand of redefining what is meant by "CZAR."
Of course, Ed's 3 definitions are NOT what is meant by the word czar.
Traditionally, a czar has been a Presidential advisor of high stature appointed to tackle a specific problem cutting across Departmental lines -- and very explciitly OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE of the standard Departments.
Traditionally, a Presidential Czar's assignment is to knock heads and get something done OUTSIDE of the Departmental system, either forcing Department heads to work together and/or expedite some action, or work totally outside the Departmental structure.
The one exception to this tradition is the Drug Czar who is unmistakably ATYPICAL of how czars have been used, in that Congress actually passed legislation to formally create the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
That is the exception, not the norm.
Posted by: Jonathon Moseley | March 11, 2010 10:37 AM
JuliaL asked a very reasonable question and wanted to know:
I don't understand what the proposed legislation (or legislation that would be proposed if Schiffer is elected) says. What does it mean to "outlaw Czars"? Surely he can't be saying he wants to make it illegal for a President to have expert advisers?"
Well, Julia, that question was answered in the original press release. So why was it left out of Ed's post?
The press release stated:
Paul Schiffer further clarified:
"My legislation allows Presidents to have any advisors they want, and call them anything they want. However, White House advisors like 'Czars' will have no authority over any part of the U.S. Government. My legislation would prohibit any White House advisor from exercising authority over any Federal or State government official, employee, office or department, and would protect every government official and employee from not obeying any White House advisor other than the President himself. The President, of course, is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and the President may always act under his own authority in his own name. Obviously, my legislation creates exceptions for any special chain of command established by statute that might be agreed to between the Congress and the President, such as with national security matters."
Posted by: Jonathon Moseley, www.Schiffer2010.com | March 11, 2010 10:44 AM