0 Votes
RE: The Basic Problem
It works, too. The word Czar has such negative connotations that all you have to do is repeat it a whole bunch. Then some of that negativity sticks to the people you want to attack. The end result is an irrational dislike of people for a reason you can’t put a finger on. The media is good with labels and telling us how to feel about people based on them.
I think the biggest issue is their broad scope of powers, coupled with the fact that they do not answer to anyone but Obama himself. Some have tasks that don’t seem to have any negative effect upon US Citizens (ending the genocide in Darfur, for example), while others seem to promote confusion—like the Energy Czar or the Health Czar. In short—people are concerned because the whole thing seems so; well secretive…from the President who promised us transparency.
RE: The Basic Problem by Stig
Well, in the U.S. System the President appoints his ministers. In (most) parliamentary systems the prime Minister appoints them from within the set of elected representatives, mostly, but not always, from within his own party.
So we should be used to having non-elected people in these roles.
I dont see much difference in transparency between appointing a Department Secretary or a Supremo to oversight Administration activity in a particular area. It seems like good management to have a coordinator.
“Czar” is just a silly media term, but I agree its negative connotations work in the way that you both describe