I agree with a recent comment by John McQuaid that conservatives need to give the "czar" issue a rest. Sampling the list, a few are worthy of concern: the auto czar; the pay czar; the energy/enviro czar. These look like they have some dubious powers.
But, while I can't claim to have studied all of the job descriptions, I sampled a few, and most "czars" seem to be mid-level officials who have been charged with "coordination" in some area. As McQuaid says: "So: Obama, the president, is appointing people to government positions that have certain policy coordination responsibilities. That's what presidents do."
Besides, anyone who has ever held a "coordinator" slot in an organization knows that the occupant, lacking authority over budget, staff, activities, salary reviews, or parking spaces, is an object of pity and derision, not awe.
Indeed, the problem may well be the reverse of what is assumed; the fact that so many people have been assigned such vague and powerless coordination responsibilities indicates the existence of some serious and unaddressed organizational problems.
So stop calling someone a czar every time a job description includes "coordination." It's getting silly.
Comments