I'm usually reluctant to post web ads, since they're produced to try to get free advertising when blogs cover them (as an alternative to paying for TV time), but you've gotta give credit to a good pun. The Democratic National Committee has been in a heavy spat with the Republican Party over criticism of the "czars," with each side sending out many press releases and memos to reporters every day. But the DNC beat their counterparts to the punch of who could appropriate the phrase "dancing with the czars" in talking-point/advertising format, co-opting a joke Glenn Beck himself actually came up with first, as it's the title of a web video they sent out this morning that counts the alleged "czars" of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, there's no actual dancing in it:
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.
The accusation that the 'czars' are evidence, somehow, of 'communism' is my favorite laugh out loud / splitting headache aspect of all this. Historically, in Russia, the communists overthrew the czars, even executed them all so the monarchy could not be re-established. So, following the historical analogy, the people who want to "overthrow" the 'czars' in the Obama Administration must be the communists, right?
Glenn Beck is, therefore, a communist sympathizer! I mean, as long as we're tossing around total crap to provoke hyper-anxiety among the public.
Cabinet secretaries are subject to Senate confirmation. That is a difference. Some of these positions called "czars" are subject to Senate confirmation, like Cass Sunstein's regulatory position or the "AIDS Czar" position. Some of them are not, and are an executive branch attempt to end-run around the executive branch. Neither the RNC nor DNC is really making the clear distinction that ought to be made. I'd like to see a careful run-down based on whether they must be confirmed.
The irony cuts both ways, of course, as the DNC is complaining much less about czars, signing statements, executive orders, and other Presidential policies now that they're being used by President Obama. All Administrations try to expand executive power with the possible exceptions of Calvin Coolidge and Gerald Ford. And the President's partisans in Congress are always hypocritical.
Sen. Feingold, who is fairly honest for a Senator, is among those saying that there is something to the complaint about non-Senate approved positions of executive power.
The term czar is incorrectly used in the video. Negraponte was confirmed by the Senate and held a cabinet level position as Director of National Intelligence. Karen Hughes was an Undersecretary of State in the State Department, Dudley was put up for confirmation for a cabinet position but not confirmed and later served as an assistant undersecretary of state in the state department, Rove was not a czar, he had Rahm Emanuel's position (i.e. both were/are political sneaky toady in chief), Ridge headed a cabinet level office as director of Homeland Security. The Cyber czar was put in place as head of a new agency based on attacks on our mainframe computers by N. Korea and the like. I could go on but do not have time and many are unnamed in the video. Whether one liked them or not, they were in positions to be held accountable (except Rove and the Drug czar (a colossal mistake which began with Reagan)
The DNC is relying on the ignorance of its constituency here in making this video. The issue is not that Obama appoints people - that is the president's job as head of the executive branch - it is that he appoints people to positions outside the cabinet with no confirmation and no duty to report to a Cabinet level official. These people are in a position of power with no oversight from a department of the executive branch. It is this type of appointment that has lead to the problems with overzealous federal drug enforcement through the drug czar, a regrettable, but inevitable result of giving power without oversight. We need to be vigilant so that these unchecked people do not end up with power that previous czars, Democratic and Republican, have gotten and abused.
Playing "But Bush did it" does not make it right. Generally, because Bush did it means it was a bad idea in the first place.
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.
Excuse me Chris, but that is the point of the ad. They are making fun of the fact the "conservatives are criticizing executive czarishness after a Republican administration." It's not that Bush had 'czars' but that they never complained about it before. Republican senators who once called for more czars are now czar hunting.
It's An Agony in 8 Fits, except it runs in a constant loop on Fox and in the mangled minds of the Washington press corps.