Comments on: Special Masters, Not “Czars”

By: jimh

jimh — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:51:08 +0000

Apparently Nixon was the first to appoint a “czar”, to help manage the oil crisis and coordinate an administration’s response to a problem. The first one I remember specifically is Bill Bennett, the former education secretary who was named Drug Czar. Many, many others have been appointed, usually to be the face of the administration in a particular matter, particularly one that crossing agency jurisdictions. What power do they have? Well, if they talk to the EPA, of course, the secretary knows that this is the president’s guy. But they’re actually powerless. All they can do is work with willing members of the administration to change things to the way that the president wants. The title is not “czar,” that’s just laziness in the newsroom. “Czars” do not in any way have the power of an absolute monarch. That’s ridiculous Beck-speak.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:02:04 +0000

I’ve always found the usage of that word in these cases odd. Why should the media give any appointed official in this country such a non-democratic nickname?

By: Supremecourtjester

Supremecourtjester — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:58:42 +0000

I, too, dislike the term “Czar.” I prefer “The Loan Arranger,” or perhaps “The Designated Hitler.”

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:01:11 +0000

The bigger concern in my mind is that “special master” implies a judicial role for someone who is an executive branch appointee. Administrative law judge, or executive compensation review officer would have been more apt titles.