Further Thoughts on Czars

First off, calling folks czars is foolish. It's an outmoded name, without outmoded connotations, and using that term obscures the actual functions of the people who hold these extra-agency positions. It also creates the impression of extreme power where very little might exist; it's a distorting name.

Second, there are situations in which it seems appropriate to bring in someone who can work full-time on a problem that is limited in duration. Reorganizing the auto industry? It makes sense to bring in someone with special skills to oversee a special team of employees probably detailed from other agencies to do the job, and leave, so the task doesn't become permanently embedded in the bureaucracy.

But it's not really an appropriate way to bring in advisers who might not survive the confirmation process, or who don't have a particular task. I've never really understood the rational for having an Urban Policy czar, for example. If Presidents are appointing czars because they worry about the capacities for departments or agencies to get things done, that's a rationale for examining and addressing existing management problems, not ignoring them and throwing together ad hoc organizations instead.