http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/dancing-with-the-czars/26733/
Some conservatives are suspicious of the number of "czars" in the Obama administration; right now, it's competing with ACORN as the top conservative meme. Of course, there were just as many Cabinet secretaries, etc., in the Bush administration, but they weren't all called "czars" back then; the term didn't become vogue with the media until the Obama transition.
None of this, of course, gets to the substantive question underlying all the criticism: has the Obama administration concentrated more power into the hands of fewer people in the executive branch?
But would it actually matter? We're talking about positions within executive bureaucracy here; it's not like calling someone a "czar" means the end of Congress and the courts. The alternative to literal "czars" within the executive would probably be more red tape.
As far as I'm concerned, the DNC actually misses the high irony of all this: not that Bush had czars of his own, but that conservatives are criticizing executive czarishness after a Republican administration that expanded executive power more than any other in recent history.
None of this, of course, gets to the substantive question underlying all the criticism: has the Obama administration concentrated more power into the hands of fewer people in the executive branch?
But would it actually matter? We're talking about positions within executive bureaucracy here; it's not like calling someone a "czar" means the end of Congress and the courts. The alternative to literal "czars" within the executive would probably be more red tape.
As far as I'm concerned, the DNC actually misses the high irony of all this: not that Bush had czars of his own, but that conservatives are criticizing executive czarishness after a Republican administration that expanded executive power more than any other in recent history.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/dancing-with-the-czars/26733/
